By Sarah Phelan
I saw the “Angelides for Governor” bus long before I saw the man who would be the next Democratic Governor of California. The bus was peacefully barreling up San Francisco’s Franklin Street on its way to the Central Labor Council where Phil Angelides was set to speak to a crowd of blue and yellow-sign waving supporters. But not before a horn-honking tow truck, cut in on the scene, its driver shouting “No to the Angelides Tax Tune-Up!” (And was that Arnold, dressed in a Super Man suit, driving a big rig, laughing manically as he pressed on a ear-drum shattering horn just as Angelides alighted from bus? Probably not, but it’s hard to tell, given the tendency of Arnie’s supporters to hide their true identities behind Super Hero masks and costumes.)
Either way, nurses, teachers, firefighters and working folks in general haven’t forgotten what Arnold has done, or tried to do, to them in the past 3 years.
Like wasting over $70 million on a special election that nobody wanted instead of trying to fix the state’s educational system.
Like stomping for Bush in Ohio in 2004, instead of demanding that California get its share of federal funds.
Like bragging about kicking nurses’ butts instead of ensuring that all Californians have access to health insurance.
Speaking of which, “Someone got their butt kicked and it wasn’t a nurse,” laughed Assemblymember Mark Leno as he addressed the crowd prior to Angelides’ appearance. “Phil Angelides slam dunked that debate.”
And as Angelides supporters pointed out, after spending over $35 million and beating up on Angelides for the past 3 months, Arnold is frozen at 44 percent in the polls. And his record sucks.
Maybe Phil Angelides hasn’t made any movies but he sure seems more trustworthy than Arnold. As Angelides told the crowd,
“I’m running with you at my side to stop the greedy obscene corporate-interest give aways.”
- No categories
Politics Blog
You Can’t Trust Arnold
No on Jessica’s Law
by Amanda Witherell
If we didn’t convince you enough that Prop 83 is just a somewhat timely law designed to make Democrats look like the ones who are soft on sexual predation (Ahem, Mark Foley) the New York Times ran an article today illustrating how similar legislation in New York has created nodes of sexual predators that are giving neighbors the willies and inspiring some to take the law into their own hands. Read more here. The other concerns, which the Times doesn’t touch, is that some acts that were once upon a time considered sex offenses, like consensual homosexual sex, no longer merit that status but under Megan’s Law the “criminals” may still have to identify themselves as sex offenders. Also, to slap Global Positioning Systems on people doesn’t necessarily mean it will be possible to keep vigilant track of them — the devices transmit signals by line of sight with satellites, which can often be blocked by roofs, walls, buildings, dense tree cover.
Working in the East Bay
By G.W. Schulz
Both the issues of fair compensation for hotel workers and immigration rights merged this week in the East Bay with an emergency picket and a call to the police. Hotel housekeepers announced that a demonstration against Woodfin Suites Hotel in Emeryville would take place on Wednesday after claiming that the establishment threatened mass firings of immigrant workers who were demanding recognition of Measure C, a living wage and workload protection ordinance passed by East Bay voters in 2005.
According to a statement sent out by the non-profit East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy, managers at Woodfin Suites gave workers 24 hours to re-submit work authorization forms or be fired. Ouch. The following day, workers delivered a petition protesting the re-verification demand and a hotel manager called the cops on them and kicked them out of the building. Since then, the 24-hour deadline has been extended to 14 days, but the hotel is still demanding a valid social security number, or workers who can’t provide one will be fired.
If that’s not enough, Woodfin Suites is suing the city of Emeryville over the ordinance, but according to an e-mail from EBASE organizer Brooke Anderson, their motion for a preliminary injunction has been denied.
“Workers see the hotel’s re-verification and termination plan as clear retaliation, which is illegal under both federal labor law and the living-wage ordinance,” the statement read.
More information can be found at EBASE’s Web site, www.workingeastbay.org.
Skate or die
By G.W. Schulz
Gavin Newsom has made a lot of promises during his tenure. He’s even come up with a few half-baked plans to contend with the city’s highest homicide rate in 10 years. But he recently dropped the ball on a seemingly simple gesture that could have at the very least kept a few kids out of trouble.
SF PartyParty reported a while back that the mayor has slipped on a promise to build two new skateparks for the city this year. They confirmed it with a call to Parks and Rec and noted that at the very most, the city could see one new skatepark next year.
We reported earlier in the year that kids attending an after-school program at Cellspace in the heart of the Mission off Bryant Street had grown fond of a group of skate ramps that had appeared quietly in the parking lot of the long-time flea market and bike kitchen located across the street from Cellspace’s warehouse. But the non-profit’s executive director Zoe Garvin told us at the time that the lot was slated for a new housing development, and the ramps wouldn’t be permitted to stick around much longer.
A new skatepark could have been timed perfectly. What a shame. Thanks to SF PartyParty for the heads up. By the way, Cellspace is holding a fundraiser on Saturday, Oct. 14 from 7-10 pm. Attend and help out some fine folks. While you’re there, ask Henry about his idea for a veggie-fueled lowrider with solar-powered hydraulic suspension. Awesome.
No limits
By Steven T. Jones
Well, the gloves have come off in the District 6 supervisorial race. The Ethics Commission has just announced that the voluntary spending caps have been lifted in that race, responding to complaints that the tens of thousands of dollars in hit pieces on Sup. Chris Daly have effectively blown the caps. Daly, Rob Black, and the other major candidates had agreed to limit their campaign expenditures to $83,000 or less, and both Black and Daly have already spent about half that, according to just filed campaign finance statements. Now that the caps are gone, Daly is free to spend the $95,000 he has in the bank, outstripping the $52,000 Black has on hand. Add those totals (which are far from complete with a month still to go) to the fat wads of cash that anti-Daly forces are still like to throw around and expect the fur to fly.
Ex-pats Beware!
by Amanda Witherell
The New York Times reported on Wednesday that software is being developed to scan overseas newspapers for content critical of the United States. You can read more here. How long do you think we have until the CIA integrates the new technology into its domestic survellience arsenal?
Back to Black
By Steven T. Jones
These are busy days, so I suppose I’ll just have to dump out the District 6 dirt just a little at a time. That’s cool, considering tomorrow’s deadline for filing pre-election campaign statement will allow me to plow into the freshest compost for y’all. We’re also having a few technical difficulties in getting the audio from Rob Black’s endorsement interview with us online, but that problem should be solved in the next couple days. And it’s worth the wait to hear him squirm in his seat over tough and legitimate questions about how he’s been doing the bidding of the wrong people for awhile now. Stay tuned.
For now, let’s recap yesterday’s Black press conference (which was held in the City Hall Press Room, despite state laws against campaigning in government offices not open to the general public, and just as the Board of Supervisors meeting was starting down the hall).
Pot. Kettle. Black.
By Steven T. Jones
District 6 supervisorial candidate Rob Black called a press conference this afternoon to accuse incumbent Sup. Chris Daly of “illegal campaigning.” The charges involve the letters that Daly and other supervisors send to their constituents. Frankly, I don’t have time right now to fully get into all the dimensions of this incident, which is rich with good color and hypocrisy. I’ll spin the full tale for y’all tomorrow. But for now, suffice it to say that the City Attorney’s Office — which Daly checked with before sending out the letters in batches of less than 200 each — doesn’t think this is illegal. That’s point one. Point two is that desperate candidates calling for a Fair Political Practices Commission investigation during the height of an election is trite, transparent, and downright cliche. But the third point is the most important. Black is a candidate that has benefitted mightly from a series of unethical, deceptive, expensive, and probably illegal attacks on Daly, many of which were orchestrated by Black’s mentor and former boss, campaign attorney Jim Sutton. These are attacks that Black has refused to fully condemn or disassociate himself from. So that’s what made today’s press conference not just ironic, but downright amusing. Check back tomorrow when I’ll have more, including good links to much of the above so you don’t just have to accept my perspective on the situation.
DARK DAYS
by Amanda Witherell
Despite the liberal signing spree that’s left most of the Dems in the state giddy with success, the guv dropped his darkened Terminator-era specs over open government by vetoing Mark Leno’s AB2927. The bill, which had unanimous approval from the House and Senate, would have improved online services for public records requests on all state agency websites, including a simple form to fill out and file electronically. It also would have allowed citizens with denied requests to appeal to the Attorney General for a review and written decision within 20 days. In a press release, Scwarzenegger said that task would be too burdensome for Lockyer’s office, and that because the Attorney General already advises state agencies who may have denied the requests, it would be a conflict of interest.
Cal Aware lawyer and open government expert Terry Franke, pointed out that anyone who read the bill would see that the Attorney General would have the right to request a 30-day extension to the response time in the case of an “unmanageable workload.” In addition, if the denial came from the Attorney General or the Department of Justice, members of the offices not involved with the original decision would be mandated to respond to the review. Also, attorney-client privilege would have trumped this bill, effectively dealing wtih the conflict of interest issue.
This bill really would have just simplified a process and added a layer of unbiased scrutiny to attempts to undermine the public’s right to know.
This is the fourth time a bill of this sort has been vetoed. Stay tuned for round five…
Youth and Dan Kelly
By Tim Redmond
Peter Lauterborn, former member of the San Francisco Youth Commission, weighs in on the School Board race at BeyondChron. His message: It’s time for Dan Kelly to go.
More on Prop. 90
By Tim Redmond
Interesting item in the Califonria Progress Report about the unsually broad coalition that’s come together to oppose prop. 90 — and the very narrow well-funded interests behind it.
You can find out more about this hideous measure here.
Really scary
By Tim Redmond
I had a really scary moment tonight.
it started well — I was moderating a discussion on immigration politics at New College, featuring Justin Akers Chacon, who has written a new book called “Nobody is Illegal.” Renee Saucedo, a longtime advocate for immigrants and day laborers, was on the panel, too, and we had a great discussion — until the very end, when Saucedo starting talking about how she was trying to build coalitions between immigrants and African Americans in Bayview Hunters Point, organizing around opposition in that neighborhood the the redevelopment plan.
And out of nowhere, she urged everyone to vote yes on Proposition 90.
For the record, Prop. 90 is almost indescribably horrible. It’s a radical right wing property-rights measure that would instantly halt any new environmental laws, any new rent-control laws, any new workplace safety laws, any new zoning laws, any limits on evictions or condo coversions … it would effectively stop government regulation of private property in California.
So why was Saucedo, a smart lawyer and strong progressive, supporting it? Because Willie Ratcliff, the publisher of the San Francisco Bay View, and Marie Harrison, a candidate for supervisor from District 10, are so dead-set against redevevelopment that they’ve signed on with the worst of the right-wing nuts in the state to endorse a measure that claims to be limiting eminent domain but is so much, much more.
I’ve discussd this with Harrison; she totally doesn’t get it. Neither, for now, does Renee Saucedo. I understand their fear of redevelopment seizing people’s homes — and I understand Saucedo’s desire to build ties with and follow the lead of African American community leaders. But get a clue, my friends. This is embarassing.
If people like Renee Saucedo are getting duped into supporting the worst law to come along in California since Prop. 13, we’re in serious trouble.
Compassionate crackdown
By Steven T. Jones
Mayor Gavin Newsom has been flailing this year, so apparently he’s going back to what’s worked politically for him before: cracking down on the homeless. This week, he ordered police and other city staffers to place notices around Golden Gate Park warning the homeless to move on or have their stuff confiscated. His flack Peter Ragone yesterday bristled when I used the word “crackdown” and insisted that this was simply a social service outreach. “We will not ask a person to leave the park without offering then a place to go,” he told me. But when I pointed out that the city doesn’t have nearly enough social service or shelter spots for the hundreds of homeless in the park — and that the posted notices seem to be more of a threat than an offer — he said that he’d have to check with Trent Rhorer (the architect of the mayor’s get-tough homeless policies) and get back to me. He never did. Yet homeless advocates and civil rights groups (including the ACLU and Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights) sent the city a letter calling the crackdown illegal, unconstitutional, and counterproductive. (Download a copy of the letter here. Hit the back button to return to this blog entry.)
And it isn’t just happening in Golden Gate Park. As we’ve been hearing and the Chron reported today, city cops are also apparently rousting the poor and homeless from around the newly opened Westfield Mall. And this stuff certainly isn’t new, but more like the MO of this administration: act like you care deeply about the homeless while quieting forcing them from the city.
Compassion there too? When will Newsom, Ragone, and the rest of this disingenuous administration realize that their actions speak far louder than their words?
No, your honor
G.W. Schulz
If you haven’t caught up with the New York Times in a while, don’t miss the intense three-part, investigative series the paper launched on Monday. Links for all three stories are now up on their site.
The series is about the completely out-of-control rural magistrates that populate New York State. Yes, it sounds a little lackluster, but the Times spent a year putting it together and it’s making the rounds like crazy.
Thirty states have “justices of the peace,” according to the piece, who often have little to no education, but are powerful enough to rule on civil suits worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, and they can put people in jail for up to two and three years. Some of the judges hardly even have a high school education, let alone a law degree, yet they possess an enormous amount of power. A mind-blowing deviation in the nation’s criminal-justice system.
Angelides says bring our troops home
By Jonathan Beckhardt
Trailing by as much as 20 points in his race for governor, Democrat Phil Angelides has turned to the Iraq War — the issue supposed to galvanize the nation’s left — and made it a state issue by today vowing to “do everything in [his] power” to bring home the approximately 800 California guard troops deployed in Iraq.
“A Governor’s first responsibility is to ensure the safety of the people of California,” Angelides said at a rally at San Francisco State University devoted to the issue. “And a governor cannot do that without a strong National Guard, [which is] our crucial defense against domestic disorder and natural disaster.”
“What does Governor Schwarzenegger say about the pressure the war has put on our precious citizen soldiers, on their readiness for earthquake, flood, or fire?” Angelides said.
Angelides said he will “put in a formal request to President Bush to return our National Guard units” on his first day in office. Then he will “mobilize governors from across this nation to force a change in national policy- so guard units can be used for their intended purpose, not propping up the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld excuse for a foreign policy.”
Though not saying what legal options he might be able to exercise, Angelides said he would “take any action, including going to court,” to carry out his pledge.
The new stand differs from the position he took in May, where at a Primary debate he said governors do not have the power over the Pentagon to bring state Guard troops home from war.
According to the California National Guard, the federal government provides about 85 percent of the funding for the National Guard, though this varies according to the amount the Guard is serving the federal government. The guard is under the command of both the state and federal government, though the federal government’s power over the force supersedes the state’s power over the force.
According to the Angelides campaign, 275 Californians have died in Iraq, 21 of whom have been members of the Guard.
Maybe Pelosi is the real devil
By Steven T. Jones
Like many Americans concerned about this country’s imperial ways, I was thrilled to hear Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez denounce U.S. President George Bush during a speech to the United Nations General Assembly. It was biting, funny, insightful, and right on target. The cowardly Democrats are unwilling to really go after our truly dangerous leader, so it was refreshing to hear someone use an official lectern in this country to tell it like it is. And besides, despite the ridiculous denunciations of Chavez that have followed, Bush has been just as harsh with Chavez and other world leaders without being so roundly denounced for his lack of decorum and diplomacy.
But I was once again embarassed by our congressional representative, Nancy Pelosi, for joining the rhetorical lynch mob, and for the utterly ridiculous reduction of a head of state and the leader of the Latin American left to an “everyday thug.” As we approach the mid-term elections, Democrats should be demonstrating than they’re something other that the cowardly and unimaginative “me too” syncophants that much of the country suspects them of being. I’m beginning to fear that under Pelosi, the Democrats will never be anything more than has-beens and back-benchers, content to fiddle for spare change while the empire burns. It’s sad.
City attorney and the cops
By Tim Redmond
City Attorney Dennis Herrera released his official opinion on how the Police Commisison has to respond the the utterly horrible California Supreme Court decision on secrecy in police discipline cases. I’m not happy.
I realize that the Supreme Court has spoken on this, and that the city attorney of San Francisco can’t just openly defy the Supremes. But there are some (small) openings in the ruling; among other things, it specifies that records in police discipline cases have to be closed, but pointedly does not address the issue of open hearings. Herrera’s opinion pretty much says there’s not a damn thing the Police Commission can do other than shut down all public access to information about cops who have behaved badly. I like and respect Herrera, but I have to side with Poice Commission vice president David Campos, who told me this afternoon that “if there’s even a small opening, we should try to pursue it.”
Police foot patrols get green light
In the face of raised levels of violent crime in San Francisco in recent months, the Board of Supes voted on September 19 to look into expanding a pilot police foot patrol program.
The program was first suggested by Sup. Ross Mirkarimi and, as amended, would provide foot patrols in more neighborhoods.
In a 5-4 vote, the Supes decided to add the Tenderloin, Mission and Ingleside police stations to the program and to send the proposed legislation back to committee for another hearing.
All this went down in face of Police Chief Heather Fong’s warnings that the program would result in increased costs and slower responses to violent crimes, even as she expressed support for expanding the program.
City Budget Analyst Harvey Rose predicted that the SFPD could start up the program without additional resources.
The amended legislation goes before the Committee on Gun and Gang Violence on Oct. 2 and returns to the full Board on OCt. 3,
Jesus — not again
By Tim Redmond
Mayor Gavin Newsom and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission are interested in pursuing tidal energy off the Godlen Gate. This is an excellent development, something that Matt Gonzalez pushed for when he was running for mayor. It’s a way to generate huge amounts of renewable energy for the city and apparently is cost-effective.
There’s only one flaw – and as far as I’m concerned, it’s fatal.
From the Chron story Sept 19:
“The city is in negotiations with a number of companies that could help run the turbines and cover the costs. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is among them, said Jared Blumenfeld, director of the city’s Department of the Environment. ”
Holy shit, here we go again.
PG&E, which stole the city’s renewable electric power 80 years ago when the dam at Hetch Hetchy Valley began generating electricity, now wants to steal the power of the Golden Gate tides, too.
Memo to the PUC and the Department of Environment: Any tidal energy project has to be built, run and controlled by the city, as part of a public-power system. If PG&E has even the tiniest bit of involvement in the deal, it will be shot down as corrupt and unacceptable. Don’t even think about it.
Will Herrera fight the cops?
By Tim Redmond
The Police Commission held a long, long closed session tonight, and I’m sure they were discussing the big issue of the day — the California Supreme Court decision that the cops insist makes all cases of discipline against peace officers totally secret.
I have no idea how the behind-closed-doors discussion went — but I do know that Commission vice-president David Campos, who is acting as a courageous champion of public access here, told me several days ago that he was going to push his colleagues not to bow down to the police lobby. He wants to keep disciplinary hearings open, to the greatest extent possible. But that will require some courage from CIty Attorney Dennis Herrera, too — the kind of courage Herrera showed in backing the city’s decision to issue same-sex marriage licenses, in defiance of the established legal authorities. There’s a way to do the same thing here — to say that San Francisco will not simply give up on public scrutiny of police misconduct: Keep the hearings open, and force the cops to sue. Then fight them all the way, and try to make better law.
Dennis?
Reconsidering redevelopment
By Steven T. Jones
My head is spinning after reading both the City Attorney’s Opinion that struck down the successful referendum drive challenging the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan, and the redevelopment plan itself. Reading the actual 62-page plan and its supporting documents is what Herrera contends voters needed to be able to do before signing the referendum. I contend that few sane citizens have the stomach or tools they need to glean much meaning from this big pile of governtese. And for wonks like me who have a long history of poring through these kinds of documents, I can’t say that I found much in there to disabuse me of the notion that redevelopment was, is, and will probably always be a tool for displacement of citizens and subsidies for private developers, with only vague and easily waived controls on how the Redevelopment Agency operates. One exception in this plan does appear to be the outright prohibition of using eminent domain to seize houses — a needed protection against a tool the Redevelopment Agency used to cleanse the Fillmore of low-income black people — although other properties can still be seized, despite plan proponents claims that eminent domain is banned by the plan.
But my point here is not to rehash the plan, which you can read yourself (and could have read yourself before signing the petition, whether or not the petitioners had a copy with them for you to spend a couple hours reading on a street corner). No, my main point is that the plan is a big deal, one that should be voted on (at the very least by BHP residents). And it’s sad to see city officials circling the wagons instead of allowing that to happen, particuarly when state law calls for city officials to err of the side of letting people vote, as even this opinion concedes.
Fuzzy police math
By Tim Redmond
After ducking the question for weeks, the San Francisco police chief has finally announced that she doesn’t want foot patrols in high-crime areas because it will harm response times. Take the cops out of their cars, the argument goes, and they can’t get around as fast when somebody calls for help.
The chief cites an internal study her staff has done (not enough cops to patrol the streets, but plenty of time for the uniformed staff to spend behind their desks doing studies) that purports to show that removing one mobile unit each shift and replacing the car-bound officers with foot patrols would increase the time it takes to answer a 911 call by several minutes. Sounds awful.
But the study didn’t seem to consider the other side: The cops on the beat — already stationed in the areas where crime is the worst — might actually decrease the number of 911 calls, or get to them faster than the car patrols coming from somewhere else in the precinct. It’s no secret where most of the violent crime happens; that’s why the supervisors are asking for the foot patrols.
If the cops really want to cut the homicide rate (instead of just getting there faster after someone’s already been shot) they need to embrace this kind of proposal. Chief Fong’s current approach clearly isn’t working.
Referendum struck down
By Steven T. Jones
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera has invalidated the referendum that challenged the Bayview Hunter’s Point Redevelopment Plan, ruling that it didn’t include all the documents that the more than 33,000 people who signed it needed to make an informed decision.
“They didn’t have the redevelopment plan itself for voters to evaluate,” Herrera spokesperson Matt Dorsey told the Guardian just after the decision was released Sept. 19.
But Willie Ratcliff, the Bayview Newspaper publisher who helped funded and coordinate the referendum drive, told the Guardian that they carefully consulted with both city officials and their attorneys to ensure the documents complied with state law.
“We expected the city would try to look for a way out and of course we’re going to fight them in court,” Ratcliff said.
The Elections Department had ruled Sept. 13 that the referendum had enough valid signatures to stop the plan. The Board of Supervisors then had the option of repealing it or submitting it to a popular vote. But board clerk Gloria Young is now required by law to invalidate the referendum and only a judge can now make it valid.
The board, which approved the plan on a 7-<\d>4 vote in May (with supervisors Tom Ammiano, Chris Daly, Ross Mirkarimi, and Gerardo Sandoval in dissent), could still act independently to repeal the plan and submit it to a vote, as recall campaign coordinator Brian O’Flynn is urging. “The will of the voters should be respected,” he told us
The plan would put about 1,500 acres in Bayview-<\d>Hunters Point under San Francisco Redevelopment Agency control, set new development standards, and collect all property tax increases into a fund that would go toward projects in the community. Opponents fear the plan would displace current residents and gentrify the area.
More soon
Hotel Workers win after 2-year struggle
UNITE HERE Local 2 has reached an agreement with San Francisco’s leading hotels after a two-year struggle.
So far, 13 CLass A hotels have agreed to a settlement that includes card check neutrality, which means that if a hotel buys up a smaller, or non-unionized hotel, workers at the non-unionized hotel have a right to join the union, too.
This settlement covers 4,200 workers.
UNITE HERE Local 2 is now working on settling with another 30 SF hotels, where contracts of 5,000 workers have expired.
As UNITE HERE Local 2 president Mike Casey put it, ” we’re not done until all of the hotels are settled.”
Casey feels that the hotels that have settled have created a pattern for others to follow.”
“It would be unacceptable for a hotel to think it could get some cheaper deal or have a competitive advantage over other hotels,” he said of what he sees as a “citywide standard that doesn’t create 2nd class citizenship for other hotel workers.
Casey is hopeful that the ovewrwhelming majority of hotels will settle up in next 30-45 days. He notes that for the handful of hotels that are non-unionized but that some day could be bought by a uionized chain, the settlements include a provision that allows their workers to join the union and raise their standards.
“The hotels resisted and said they’d never allow it,” says Casey of the card check provision. “It’s quite unprecedented. I think the hotels finally decided to make a smart business decision. They realized it was costing them more to fight than to settle with us.”
Unite Here Local 2 spokesperson Valerie Lapin also told the Guardian that settlements had been reached in New York, Chicago and Monterey and that others are still being negotiated in a number of cities, including San Francisco, Hawaii and a couple of hotels in Monterey that aren’t covered by the settlement that’s already been reached in that city.
While the details of each settlement varies, Lapin said that overall the settlements are good.
“The wages and benefits are very good, which is a reflection of how prosperous the industry is, and the settlements guarantee the rights of workers to join a union,” she said.
In additFor more details of the settlement, check out www.unitehere2.org.