Maria Dinzeo reports from City Hall on some of the same-sex couples getting married today.
Every couple has a different tale, and same-sex couples are no exception. Some met and fell in love at school; some found love in a bar.
Sarah Good and Kristina Ramos met in Charlottesville, VA, where Good was a law student and Ramos as a graduate student in English. They have been together 20 years, waiting for the right to marry.
So how did they know they were right for one another? “How does anyone know?” said Ramos. Good point.
Michael Gerber said he met husband Tony Paredes “after the bars on Folsom Street closed on a seedy Saturday night.”
“Oh don’t say that!” laughed Paredes, a burly bearded gentleman whose grey suit jacket matched Gerber’s.
For both couples, this day has been a long time coming. Gerber and Paredes have been together 13 years and were first married in 2004, mostly as an act of civil disobedience. Now they are marrying for a second time, and they hope it will be the last. “I’ve been out for a long time, and I never thought in my wildest dreams that this could really be happening,” said Gerber, beaming. “It’s very affirming, and it makes you feel good to have your marriage recognized by society,” he said.
While Good and Ramos recently took a three-week vacation to Australia, “as our retroactive honeymoon,” Gerber and Paredes will head off to Glacier National Park in Montana for two weeks. “We both enjoy road trips and we’ve been to many national parks,” said Gerber. “We’re from the City so we like to get out of Dodge as much as we can.” But don’t expect them to be pitching tents. Said Gerber, “my idea of camping is a room and a shower.”
Maria Dinzeo reports from City Hall on some of the same-sex couples getting married today.
Marc Benson and Charles Sullivan descended the City Hall steps this morning amidst a thunder of applause and a flurry of flags and signs, one of which read, “It’s a Nice Day for Gay Wedding.” For this pair of high-school sweethearts, nothing could be more true. Although the two have been together 27 years, it wasn’t until today that a decision from California’s Supreme Court allowed them to formalize their commitment with a marriage ceremony.
Benson and Sullivan grew up together in Long Island, New York, and attended the same grammar and high schools, but did not become a couple until Benson went off to college. There, Benson befriended “a very persuasive lesbian” named Maxine. “She threatened me with bodily harm if I didn’t tell Charles how I felt about him,” said Benson.
The two married in 2004, when Gavin Newsom defied California law by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but as with all same-sex marriages performed at that time, it was voided in August 2004 by the state Supreme Court. “It bothers me that so many have tried to defeat this,” said Benson.
Sullivan said they registered for their marriage license online a month ago, as soon as they heard the court’s ruling. “I work for the city attorney who has been arguing this case, so I’ve been following it closely,” he said.
In spite of their many years together, Benson and Sullivan have had little difficulty maintaining the spark in their relationship. “I’ve never really stopped to think about why our relationship works so well,” said Benson. “Charles is very tolerant and patient with me. He lets me do anything I want.”
Though the two have no immediate plans to adopt children (their hectic work schedules prevent them), they plan to celebrate their nuptials with a party in October and a honeymoon in Patagonia.
I am positively giddy! As of yesterday at 5 p.m., the California State Supreme Court’s May 15th same-sex marriage ruling took effect. The County Clerk’s office began issuing marriage licenses at 5:01 p.m.
In this post, I’ma try to give you the basic reasoning in the ruling (which is here: Download supreme_court_opinion.pdf). Obviously, squeezing the 121-page ruling into a three-page word document necessitated leaving out a number of nuances. Specifically, I’ve tried to give you the affirmative reasoning here and will follow-up with a second piece on how the Court shot down the arguments against gay marriage.
As I walked to City Hall from the BART station yesterday to witness this marvelous moment, the first sign I saw was a large yelIow one that read “Recriminalize Sodomy.” And I had to chuckle because these folks had clearly not read the decision.
See, the California State Supreme Court’s decision contains a Technicolor “Eff You” that beats any chant or hiss I could muster. Not only did the Court summarily reject the notion that heterosexuals would be harmed by extending to gay people the right to marry, it also made quick work of the defendants’ argument that “tradition” is somehow a rational justification for preserving heterosexual marriage.
Thanks to prior civil rights movements, court cases are rife with precedent for change in the traditional way things have been done. (Women being afforded the right to serve on juries, for example.) One chant aimed at the religious folks holding anti-gay signs on steps of City Hall could have been written by the justices themselves:
“Racist, sexist, anti-gay; fascist Christians go away!”
Guardian photog Charles Russo shot the crowd outside City Hall yesterday.
A newlywed prelude to Tuesday’s wedding mania?
Though fairly small in number, the anti-gay marriage sect was highly visible Monday evening as several hundred gathered outside of San Francisco’s City Hall.
San Franciscan Jana Barber (“I’m here to support love”) gives an earful to Bill Hampsmire (“Perverts Repent”) of Christians for God — um, what else would they be for? — outside of City Hall on Monday evening.
Guardian photog Ariel Soto got these shots of Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin’s wedding at City Hall yesterday, as well as some of the celebratory crowd outside.
The view from City Hall steps
Spiralling toward matrimony
Phyl and Del (in wheelchair) cutting the gorgeous Citizen Cake cake
Joined by the glowing, and glowing-haired, mayor
Ariel says: “From my perch up in the balcony of city hall, looking down at the throngs of media and a beautiful white cake, my heart started beating faster and faster because I was about to witness a true piece of much awaited and much deserved history — the first legal same-sex marriage of Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin on June 16th in San Francisco’s City Hall. The couple was greeted with lots of love and joy and loud cheering, along with the huge crowd outside the court house who were also joining in with the festivities, passing out flowers, singing songs and just being darn happy that this day has finally arrived. Congrats Phyllis and Del on your much awaited marriage — and may your love and courage live on forever!”
Hunky Beau and I hightailed it down to City Hall at 5pm today to (we hoped) catch Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, San Francisco’s first legally married same-sex couple — and the city’s only one today, symbolically — emerge triumphantly onto the hall’s steps, frantically waving their newly imbued license to the roar of a supportive crowd.
The crowd of hundreds eagerly awaits
Tired, usual bigots in their corner
Signs of support
That crowd was sprinkled with hometown stars, including Ron, former owner of the much-missed Josie’s Cabaret and Juice Joint in the Castro and comedian Scott Capurro, who kept the waiting crowd in giggles with occasional surreal outbursts.
OK, so this is it. This is the day I’m finally equal. No longer a “second class citizen” — in California at least, the third biggest state with the largest population in the good ol’ US of Gay. Today at 5pm, two precious octagenarian lesbians will legally tie the knot at San Francisco City Hall, and tomorrow I’ll have access to the last state right denied to me on the basis of which side I butter my queer toast. Weird.
Will I suddenly walk taller? Will my shoulders expand and my chest inflate? Will I finally fall prey to all that Sex and the City hoo-ha and watch my moods swing from Blahnik pump to Wang gown with every hysterical cosmo and Cosmo I down? Or will I become the stereotypical male role model — unable to commit to an ice cream flavor or credit card company, let alone matrimony.
Maybe worse, as someone whose queer identity was partly formed by saying “who cares” to marriage, because there’s more pressing problems confronting the community — now that that stance is officially a personal rather than a political statement, what will happen to my politics? “Who cares.”
Mostly, and oddly, though, I found myself waking up this morning itching for a fight.
OK, so this is it. This is the day I’m finally equal. No longer a “second class citizen” — in California at least, the third biggest state with the largest population in the good ol’ US of Gay. Today at 5pm, two precious octagenarian lesbians will legally tie the knot at San Francisco City Hall, and tomorrow I’ll have access to the last state right denied to me on the basis of which side I butter my queer toast. Weird.
Will I suddenly walk taller? Will my shoulders expand and my chest inflate? Will I finally fall prey to all that Sex and the City hoo-ha and watch my moods swing from Blahnik pump to Wang gown with every hysterical cosmo and Cosmo I down? Or will I become the stereotypical male role model — unable to commit to an ice cream flavor or credit card company, let alone matrimony.
Maybe worse, as someone whose queer identity was partly formed by saying “who cares” to marriage, because there’s more pressing problems confronting the community — now that that stance is officially a personal rather than a political statement, what will happen to my politics? “Who cares.”
Mostly, and oddly, though, I found myself waking up this morning itching for a fight.
EDITORIAL Working with environmentalist cover, Mayor Gavin Newsom and Pacific Gas and Electric Co. have moved aggressively to derail a move that would have given the city control over some local power generation. Instead, the mayor is now pushing to keep Mirant Corp. running the one electricity plant that still operates within city limits.
The politics of the deal are complicated, but the driving force is clear: PG&E didn’t want the city moving even a small step toward public power, and as usual, the big utility is getting its way.
The power plant deal proves exactly why Supervisors Ross Mirkarimi and Aaron Peskin should move forward with a November charter amendment for public power.
As Amanda Witherell reports, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission has been trying for years now to win approval for three city-owned combustion turbines that would generate electric power at a plant at the foot of Potrero Hill. The idea: the turbines, also known as "peakers," would generate enough power during peak-use periods to convince the state to shut down the dirtier Mirant Plant.
Many environmentalists opposed the proposal, saying that the city shouldn’t be building any new fossil-fuel plants. That’s a legitimate argument. But California’s Independent System Operator (Cal-ISO), the agency that controls the electric grid, insisted that renewable energy alone wouldn’t provide enough reliable power for San Francisco, and said the only way to shut down Mirant was to put in the peakers.
PG&E has been trying for months to derail the peakers not, of course, out of any concern for the environment, but because the city would own the power plants. At first Newsom stuck by his PUC but after seven PG&E lobbyists came into his office and gave him the facts of life (see "PG&E offers Newsom a blank check" at sfbg.com), he backed down. And now, after meeting with the CEOs of PG&E and Mirant, Newsom is pushing the worst possible alternative: he wants to retrofit the Mirant plant and let the private company operate its own peakers.
Same fossil fuel plants in the Bayview. Same type of air pollution. And the facility would be owned by a private company.
The supervisors need to reject this proposal with extreme prejudice and the environmentalists who fought the city peakers ought to be just as loud in their opposition to Mirant’s retrofit.
The good news is that this ridiculous NewsomPG&E deal ought to put the focus at City Hall back on public power, because that’s the only way to create a really green power profile in San Francisco.
Matthew Wald, who has coved energy policy for decades, wrote an interesting piece in the New York Times June 8 discussing why no private company wants to invest money in technology that would reduce carbon emissions from power plants. "Cutting carbon dioxide emissions is a fine idea, and a lot of companies would be proud to do it," Wald wrote. "But they would prefer to be second, if not third or fourth."
That’s because no private utility wants to take the risks and try something new that another company could then copy. In economic terms, carbon reduction is a public good it’s something that benefits everyone, and nobody has the exclusive right to make money off of it. Private companies have been notoriously bad at investing in public goods.
But that’s not how public power agencies work. A San Francisco power agency would have every motivation to develop and use technology that saves consumers money or protects the environment. There’s no issue of profits to protect; in fact, one of the mandates of a city agency should be reducing carbon emissions and promoting renewable energy.
We have always been sympathetic to the concerns that the city-owned peakers would emit greenhouse gases. But if the city owned the plants, the city could shut them down anytime, whenever enough renewables were available. Mirant won’t shut down anything that is bringing in cash.
Mirkarimi and Peskin are working on the details of a public power measure, but the outlines ought to be clear: it should mandate that the SFPUC create and implement a plan to put the city in the retail power business, in compliance with the letter and spirit of the Raker Act and get rid of PG&E and Mirant. The supervisors should put that on the November ballot.
Coming home after almost two weeks in Sweden with the annual World Association of Newspapers (WAN) assembly and study tour, I was struck once again how nothing seems to change in San Francisco when it comes to the PG&E/Raker Act scandal.
PG&E was still firmly in control of the city’s energy policy in the mayor’s office. Mayor Gavin “The Green Knight” Newsom had capitulated spectacularly to PG&E and had reversed his policy of supporting a plan by his PUC that would have given the city control over some local power generation at the Mirant power plant (the peaker proposal.) The mayor had met secretly with PG&E executives and stiffed representatives from the Potrero Hill neighborhood and the environmental, environmental justice, public power, and community choice aggregation (CCA) movements.
The Hearst-owned Chronicle continued its long corporate tradition of blacking out the real story of the accelerating PG&E/Raker Act scandal. The utility was beautifully executing its divide and conquer strategy it has honed ever since the days that John Muir and the Sierra Club fought in vain to stop the damming of Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park for the city’s public water and power supply. (In that battle at that time, the Guardian would have stood with Muir.)
Amanda Witherell laid out the latest sorry episode in her story in Wednesday’s Guardian. Her lead: “Green City Mayor Gavin Newsom finally outlined what he calls a ‘more promising way forward than the current proposal’ of building two publicly owned power plants in San Francisco. The way forward: retrofit three existing diesel turbines at the Mirant Potrero Power Plant, while simultaneously shutting down Mirant’s most polluting smokestack, Unit 2.”
Our editorial laid out the political context: “The politics of the deal are complicated, but the driving force is clear: PG&E didn’t want the city moving even a small step toward public power, and as usual, the big utility is getting its way…PG&E has been trying for months to derail the peakers–not, of course, out of any concern for the environment, but because the city would own the power plants. At first Newsom stuck by his SPUC but when seven PG&E lobbyists came into his office and gave him the facts of life (see ‘PG&E offers Newsom a blank check‘), he backed down.
“And now, after meeting with the CEOs of PG&E and Mirant, Newsom is pushing the worst possible alternative: he wants to retrofit the Mirant plant and let the private company operate its own peakers. Same fossil fuel plants in the Bayview. Same type of air pollution. And the facility would be owned by a private company.”
Repeating for emphasis: When PG&E spits, City Hall swims. When PG&E spits, the mayor swims.
And so PG&E and Newsom have set the stage for the next phase in this great battle to kick PG&E out of City Hall, enforce the federal Raker Act mandating public power for San Francisco, and bring our own cheap, clean Hetch Hetchy public power to the residents and businesses of San Francisco.
The next stage is the emerging new public power initiative that Supervisors Ross Mirkarimi and Aaron Peskin are working on, with a wide swath of neighborhood and public power forces, aimed for the November ballot as a charter amendment.
This would be the third go at taking on PG&E head-on on the November ballot. This time it has a good chance of succeeding since PG&E and Newsom have gone out of their way to make the case for public power in 96 point Tempo Bold for all to see and savor. The measure will also be helped by massive turnout with Obama, seven supervisorial races, a clutch of solid progressive measures, and a smart, aggressive Obama like grassroots organizing campaign.
Let’s roll. B3, who wonders when he will no longer see the fumes from the Mirant plant from his office window at 135 Mississippi Street at the bottom of Potrero Hill
Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, the first couple to get married in City Hall, 2004, in a great photo by Liz Mangelsdorf of the Chronicle
Kamala (left), I know exactly how you feel. And my once radical queer eye teared up again, dammit dammit, at the news that Phyllis and Del will officially be the first legally married same-sex couple in San Francisco on June 16. (The flood of betrothed others will be ball-and-chained starting the 17th.)
Phyl, aged 83, and Del, 87, who of course are legendary for their incredible contributions to the community, met in 1950 and moved in together in 1953. That means they’ve officially been together for more than 55 years.
As I read the news last night next to my Hunky Beau, I realized that time might be against us for reaching such a milestone anniversary together — but still our hands squeezed a little tighter. Romantic fools! Thank you, Phyllis and Del. You completely deserve this. Whatever reservations I and many other queers may have about marriage, you’re an inspiration of feisty longevity and dedication.
At the foot of the rotunda stairs in City Hall, a young bride in a short white dress shifts her weight from side to side, holding a bouquet of bright yellow lilies. Maybe she’s watching intently as the solemn procession of roughly 120 clergy and activists winds slowly up the steps and towards the bronze bust of Harvey Melk. Or maybe she’s just annoyed at being made to wait.
The demonstration, which began in the South Light Court at 10:30 on Thursday, June 5, was organized by Religious Witness for Homeless People, an interfaith organization that pushes for policy change on behalf of San Francisco’s homeless. Though Religious Witness has been responsible for hundreds of actions during its 15-year existence, including a much-publicized 1996 campaign to preserve the Presidio’s Wherry housing for low-income tenants, today’s protest was specifically directed at the ongoing budget process. The city is facing a $338 million dollar deficit, and Mayor Newsom is expected to balance the budget by cutting city funding to key service organizations. “The proposed budget is a disaster for San Francisco’s homeless,” said Sister Bernie Galvin, the founder of Religious Witness and a Catholic nun. She cited the 137 documented homeless deaths in San Francisco in 2007, suggesting that if the mayor and the board of supervisors cut crucial services, homeless deaths could rise this year.
The demonstrators processed through the corridors of city hall, singing softly, past signs reading “Silence: meeting in progress.” The procession halted outside the office doors of each of the city’s 12 supervisors, and each time Sister Bernie rapped loudly on the glass. As the door opened, retired Catholic priest John “Fitz” Fitzgerald spoke each supervisor’s name loudly, and the crowd responded in unison: “we call on you to remember that our moral compass always points in the direction of compassion.” Sister Bernie presented the supervisor with a plaque (usually accepted with an embarrassed smile by an aide) and the slow marching and singing resumed, punctuated by the sound of the heavy wooden doors slamming shut. When the demonstration reached the office of Gerardo Sandoval, the 11th district supervisor, a grinning Sandoval joined the procession, chatting with the clergy, shaking hands and clapping backs. “I’m with you one hundred percent,” he said, addressing the crowd.
SONIC REDUCER "Obviously I wanted to be part of this wealthy cause … whoops, I mean, worthy cause a Freudian slip!" blurted Seal to amassed gowns and tuxes at a packed Davies Symphony Hall May 31. Well, it was pretty B&W at this, the Black and White Ball 2008. He went on to explain that he was more than glad to play the benefit bash for the San Francisco Symphony’s Adventures in Music education program, until he realized that night’s event was just a day before wife Heidi "And sometimes you’re out … in the doghouse" Klum’s birthday. "Even though it was written almost 20 years ago, I never knew what this song was about till four or five years ago," he drawled graciously, before easing into a swooningly romantic "Kiss from a Rose." The coiffed and painted debs swayed in the seats behind the stage like tropical palms, the gray-tressed oldsters in tuxes yawned as if their jaws would dislocate, and all the right and leftie blondes flitted to the front as if drawn to a gyrating, white-scarfed flame. The irony that Seal was putting in a high-energy set and working in an establishment-jabbing anthem titled "System" "but you won’t get to hear it here because record companies aren’t what they used to be, but this isn’t that kind of show," according to the UK crooner was not altogether lost on the assembled partygoers at this very establishment affair.
Still, the Grey Goose quaffing, shrimp chomping, and dance-it-up musical offerings lining the closed-off swath of Van Ness added up to a surprisingly solid good time not to mention further confirmation of the latest urban SF curiosity: packs of underdressed, strapless-clad or micro-miniskirted, microclimate-besieged fashion victims who insist on braving hypothermia sans outerwear. Is it really that toasty over the bridge and through the tunnel?
Nonetheless I got a kick out of Extra Action Marching Band, its flag girls drooling faux-blood while chilling, kicking it iceberg-style beneath the polka-dot-lit, fireworks-bedecked City Hall. Pete Escovedo still had what it took to pull me to the dance floor and get the salsa out. Hot on the heels of Harriet Tubman (Noir), Marcus Shelby riled up Strictly Ballroom wannabes in the bowels of the War Memorial Opera House, and upstairs DJ Afrika Bambaataa turned in an unforgettable old-school hip-hop and rock-pop set, sweetly warbling, "I just want your extra time … " to Prince’s "Kiss," as a mob of gorgeous freaks mobbed the stage. Be it ever so old-fashioned and ever so obligatorily glammy, the B&WB was such a ball that I was inspired to use it as the barometer of sorts for a few other music-fest contenders.
B&W BALL BY THE NUMBERS Kilts: two. Turbans: three. Closeted waltz-heads eager to make the Metronome Ballroom lessons pay off: more than a dozen. Misguided ladies who looked like they tried to repurpose their wedding gowns as white formalwear: two. Gavin Newsom look-alikes: a toothy handful. Jennifer Siebel look-alikes: hundreds. Former hippies in formalwear: six. Men in all-white who looked like they stepped out of an alternate "Rapture" video: two. Burning Man references as City Hall was bookended by pillars of fire at midnight: two. Screeching highlights-victims upon seeing their girlfriends: more than two ears can handle. Sneaky types who looked like they’ve probably worn the same thing to B&WB every year since 1983: more than designers and luxury goods manufacturers would care to know.
HARMONY FESTIVAL (June 68, Santa Rosa, harmonyfestival.com, including Damian "Jr. Gong" Marley, George Clinton and Parliament Funkadelic, Arrested Development, and Mickey Hart Band) Expected Gavin look-alikes: zip unless you count the Cali boys who look early Gavin with dreadlocks. Rich hippies with perfect hair and lavishly embroidered coats: three.
BERKELEY WORLD MUSIC FESTIVAL (June 7, Berkeley, www.berkeleyworldmusic.org, with Dengue Fever, and Sila and the AfroFunk Experience) Expected turbans: the Sufi trance music guarantees at least a couple. Kilts: zero. Swirlie dancers: a dozen-plus.
OUTSIDE LANDS (Aug. 2224, SF, www.sfoutsidelands.com, including Radiohead, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, Jack Johnson, Wilco, Beck, and the Black Keys) Expected bikes piled in the racks: a thou. Concert-goers overcome by heat: C’mon, this is San Francisco.
TREASURE ISLAND MUSIC FESTIVAL (Sept. 2021, Treasure Island, treasureislandfestival.com, with Justice, the Raconteurs, TV on the Radio, and Tegan and Sara) Projected number of great views of SF: innumerable. Gold-trimmed "ironic" sunglasses: a gazillion. Concertgoers who discover far too late that shorts are only ideal for an hour a day: 135.
LOVEFEST (Oct. 4, SF, www2.sflovefest.org) Ever-recyclable ’70s-style bells: a couple-dozen. Fabulous-faux hairpieces: Wigstock is forever. Swirlie dancers: you got ’em.
YOU BREAK IT YOU BOUGHT IT
FROG EYES, LITTLE TEETH, AND CHET
Eke out a few tears of valedictorianism: it’s an Absolutely Kosher explosion of untrammeled, happily eccentric talent. Fri/6, 9:30 p.m., $10<\d>$12 Café Du Nord, 2170 Market, SF. www.cafedunord.com
FOOT FOOT AND FOX PAUSE
Lo-fi dust-ups coupled with folkie meanders are aFoot Foot, flanked by the solo musings of ex-Guardian-ite Sarah Han. With Casiotone for the Painfully Alone. Sat/7, 9:30 p.m., $8. Hemlock Tavern, 1131 Polk, SF. www.hemlocktavern.com
RADIO SLAVE
Taking a break from the sweltering, disco-imbued exotica of Quiet Village and its Silent Movie (K7), producer Matt Edwards dons his dark techno persona, Radio Slave. Sat/7, call for time and price. Endup, 401 Sixth St., SF. (415) 646-0999, www.theendup.com *
OPINION Local government is frozen. The mayor’s office and the Board of Supervisors have been engaged in open warfare for months. This week, Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that in order to balance San Francisco’s budget, city services and community-based organizations will have to undergo draconian cuts.
In a preemptive move against embarrassing protests, the mayor’s press office did not reveal the location of the annual budget presentation to the news media until late Friday afternoon. Even the supervisors, who will be debating and voting on the budget during the month of June, were left in the dark until then.
While the mayor didn’t blame city workers for the financial crisis, he did suggest that Service Employees International Union Local 1021, which represents the low-wage, frontline, service-providing city workers, should "help out."
Well, we have. SEIU members stepped up to "help out" in fiscal years 200304 and 200405 by agreeing to wage freezes and self-funding our pensions. All the recent midyear cuts were in public health agencies and among SEIU-represented nonprofits.
Most recently we stepped up by helping draft and vigorously campaigning to pass Proposition B, which freezes city workers wages for two years and tightens eligibility for retiree health care benefits in exchange for a modest increase in city pension benefits.
The mayor’s budget director repeatedly has said that this is a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Talk about spin.
Moreover, in his June 2 budget presentation, the mayor made no mention of raising revenue as an answer to our fiscal problems. You could almost hear Gov. Schwarzenegger’s voice as Newsom presented a slash-services budget with a "no-new-taxes" slogan waiting in the wings for his next campaign.
Everyone knows it’s expensive to live in San Francisco. Paying city employees a wage that allows them to stay in the community they serve isn’t a budget "problem." It ought to be a basic part of what City Hall does and cares about. And if that means looking at bringing in new sources of money, we should have that conversation.
We believe there are various revenue sources that make more sense to explore than some of these service cuts, including a real estate transfer tax increase for high-level properties.
Fortunately, the mayor’s proposal is just a starting point. Soon we will be proposing specific alternatives.
Toward that end, the San Francisco Human Services Network and Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth have organized a citywide forum on the mayor’s proposed budget cuts. SEIU 1021 is cosponsoring this event. The San Francisco budget and revenue town-hall meeting will be held June 9 from 2-4 p.m. in the San Francisco Main Library’s Koret Auditorium, 100 Larkin (at Grove)
Don’t get angry. Get organized.
Robert Haaland
Robert Haaland is a longtime San Francisco activist who works for Local 1021.
GREEN CITY At long last, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission appears to be moving forward with plans to address long overdue environmental justice issues (“It Flows Downhill,” 08/08/06) that are directly related to its sewage treatment plant in the city’s southeast sector.
At a May 27 SFPUC meeting, SFPUC staff recommended that the agency build a new digester facility in the southeast part of town and divert 12 percent of its sewage flow to the west side’s Oceanside plant, (which, incidentally, a current signature-gathering campaign hopes voters in November will rename the George W. Bush Sewage Treatment Plant).
For decades residents of BayviewHunters Point have endured foul smells, thanks to the close proximity to their homes of the Southeast treatment plant. The site treats 76 percent of the city’s sewage in facilities that are almost entirely outdoors. By contrast, facilities at the Oceanside plant, in a wealthier side of town, are mostly indoors and/or underground.
It’s an unequal division that has long had southeast residents claiming environmental racism. To make matters worse, the Southeast plant contains nine pancake-shaped digesters that could experience problems in an earthquake, with worrisome corrosion on the undersides of the digesters’ covers.
Cost estimates for a new digester facility range from $700 million to $1.3 billion. This variation depends on the location choice for the new digesters: if the agency builds new digesters on the south side of its existing Southeast plant, the agency is looking at the cheaper end of the scale.
But if the SFPUC follows another option to build a new facility on the back lot of Pier 94, a Port of San Francisco property, it would remove the plant from a residential neighborhood but be left facing a near doubling of the cost.
Replacing the digesters was a pet cause of former SFPUC General Manager Susan Leal, and continues to be a priority for District 10 supervisor Sophie Maxwell, so it’s likely to remain a key focus for former City Controller Ed Harrington, who took over as general manager of the agency after Mayor Gavin Newsom ousted Leal.
"You’ll see immediate work on the digesters," Harrington assured the commissioners. "The PUC is suggesting doing on an environmental impact report on both sites."
That report likely won’t be complete until 2010, when the agency leaders will have to choose an option. PUC project manager Jon Loiacono seems to be keenly aware of the thorny issues at play and told the commission that "staff would like to work with an advisory group and hire a consultant sensitive to community issues to find the best solution."
"It would almost certainly be less expensive to rebuild on the current site, but we don’t want anyone to make the digester decision based on cost," PUC spokesperson Tony Winniker told the Guardian.
"We really want it to be a public health and safety decision," PUC Citizens Advisory Committee chair Alex Lantsberg told the Guardian.
The digester replacement cost represents a significant chunk of the total estimated price tag of the PUC’s proposed sewer system master plan, which ranges from $3.8 billion to $4.4 billion. PUC staff is also outlining plans to send some of the waste westward in what the PUC currently calls "the Upper Alemany diversion."
The plan involves building a tunnel near Cayuga Creek, where runoff water tends to back up, and carrying it to the Oceanside plant. So, is this the return of the dreaded cross-town tunnel, an idea that had irate Bernal Heights residents waving plungers at City Hall three decades ago? PUC staff claim it is not.
"It’s a different concept, but similar," Loiacono said of the current plan.
"This reduces how much waste is treated in the Bayview and shifts it to a plant where there is excess capacity," Winniker explained, further noting that while the old cross-town tunnel would have run under Bernal Heights, this diversion will use city rights of way.
The project would improve drainage for the Cayuga and divert about 10 million gallons of sewage per day from the Southeast plant to the Oceanside plant, PUC spokesperson Tyron Jue told us. The alignment hasn’t been chosen yet, but Jue said, "we’re considering different routes, like Brotherhood Way or Ocean Avenue."
Whatever path the SFPUC pursues, the project won’t be cheap economically or politically.
EDITORIAL If you think the June ballot was busy, wait until November. San Francisco will be electing six district supervisors. The mayor and organized labor are going to be pushing the mother of all bond acts, roughly $1 billion to rebuild San Francisco General Hospital. There’s likely to be a public power charter amendment mandating that the city mount a real effort to take over the electric grid. There will probably be a major affordable-housing initiative that includes a set-aside for low-income housing and perhaps some affordable-housing bond money. It’s shaping up as an election that will change the city’s direction for years to come but there’s still a crucial piece missing.
There’s no money.
Public power will, of course, generate vast amounts of new revenue, but not immediately: the process of setting up the system and fighting Pacific Gas and Electric Co. in court could drag out for several years. That, of course, is all the more reason to get started if the city had done this years ago, we wouldn’t have a budget crisis today.
But in the meantime, right now, San Francisco needs cash and there needs to be a November ballot measure that brings in new revenue to pay for more affordable housing and to save the services Mayor Gavin Newsom is cutting.
It’s tough to pass new taxes in California. Most of the time, state law mandates a two-thirds majority vote by the people to enact any new form of taxation. But it’s a bit easier when the supervisors are up for election; on those ballots, the threshold is only 50 percent. And with at least four tightly contested supervisorial races bringing out voters, labor bringing out the troops for the General Hospital bond, and the Democratic Party pushing to get voters out for Barack Obama, the turnout should be excellent.
So if there’s ever a good time to try to pass a tax measure, November 2008 ought to fit the bill.
All sorts of tax proposals have floated around City Hall in recent years and some of them for example, a higher real-estate transfer tax were defeated at the ballot. Some groups will oppose any tax proposal, and it’s hard to find constituencies that want to work hard for higher taxes.
So the key to crafting a revenue measure is to ensure that it’s as progressive as possible, and that it takes into account the concerns of those small businesses and homeowners who aren’t rich and can’t afford huge new levies. We see two good options:
1.A city income tax. This hasn’t been seriously discussed since the 1980s, but it ought to be. California law bars cities from collecting traditional income taxes that is, San Francisco can’t tax the incomes of everyone who lives here. But in 1978 the state Supreme Court ruled that cities can tax income earned from employment in the city. The upside is that a San Francisco employment income tax would hit commuters, a huge group who use city services and don’t pay for them. The downside is that people who live here but work, say, in Silicon Valley would escape the tax.
But overall, income taxes are the fairest method of collecting revenue, and a city tax could be set to hit hardest on the wealthiest. The city could exempt, say, the first $50,000 of earned income, levy a modest (say, 1 percent) tax on the next $50,000, then increase the marginal percentage so that people with enormous salaries pay as much as 2 or 3 percent.
The beauty of this: most of the people who paid the top-end income tax would simply write it off their federal income taxes meaning this would be a direct shift of cash from Washington DC to San Francisco. And it would come primarily from people who have already received a huge tax windfall from the Bush administration.
Yes, some people would cheat. Some businesses would try to claim their employees all really worked out of a satellite office in another city. But New York City has a municipal income tax. So does Philadelphia. They manage to deal with the cheaters. The supervisors at least ought to consider the idea.
2.A new business tax. Almost everyone agrees that San Francisco’s business taxes are unfair. The city places a flat tax on businesses a small merchant pays the same percentage as a giant corporation and some partnerships, like law firms, get away with paying no city taxes at all. The best way to fix that may be to create a single, progressive business tax (probably on gross receipts), with no loopholes, that exempts the first $100,000 or so and actually lowers the levy on small businesses while significantly raising it on big ones. Most small businesses would get an actual tax cut while the big guys would pick up the tab.
Together, a tax package like this could bring in the $250 million a year or so the city needs and some of the money could go to cutting, say, Muni fares or reducing the sales tax so working-class San Franciscans would pay less.
Almost everyone at City Hall knows the current tax system is unfair, regressive, and inadequate. We’ve been calling for the supervisors to do something about it for years now. November 2008 seems like an excellent time.
I push off and head down a makeshift plywood runway, compressing as I roll over the edge and into the Technicolor graffiti of the drainage ditch. The transition between the banked wall and the flatbottom has an abrupt kink in it, enough to send you to your face if you’re caught sleeping. I take some weight off the front end and try to maintain my speed as I pump into the opposite corner and carve the far end of the ditch where there’s an over-45-degree wall that runs behind what my friends and I call the "death pit" a gaping cutaway in the bottom of the culvert, five feet deep, filled with broken glass, and frequently used as a urinal. Since I’m at the apex of my backside carve, up a wall 10 feet above last week’s Miller Time, I’m jolted by the crackle of a loudspeaker:
"You are trespassing. Leave the area at once or you will be arrested."
My concentration shot by the sheriff’s announcement, I jump off my deck and over the chasm at the base of the bank, barely clearing the skater’s version of a Vietnam tiger pit, and land on the rough concrete beyond the edge. My board bullets straight in, though, so I’ve got to lower myself gingerly into the mostly dry detritus and rescue it before my friends and I jet out of the spot and into the manicured back nine of Pleasanton’s Castlewood golf course. We get to the car, throw the boards in the trunk mine has a "Skateboarding Is Not a Crime" sticker on the bottom and head to the next spot, a ditch called the Rat Trap.
The year is 1987. I’m 16, in high school, and living with my parents in Fremont. The scene plays out over and over in much the same way: a drainage ditch, a nicely painted curb or ledge at a shopping center, the occasional backyard pool, and night sessions at the Tar Banks, a set of embankments around a loading dock with curbs at the top. It’s an underground railroad of repurposed architecture, none of it designed with a skateboard in mind but all of it highly skateable.
Taking the $4.7mil Cunningham skatepark. Video by Jarrod Allen, www.jarrodallen.com
Every weekend my crew hits as many spots as we can, and the constants shape up like this: urethane, aluminum, Canadian hard rock maple, concrete, and asphalt. Maybe blood, maybe beer we’re teenagers after all but nearly always: cops.
Skateboarding may not be a crime, but it sure as hell feels like one.
Flash forward 20 years. I’m with a different crew as I pull onto a street in suburban Redwood City, and I’m no longer rollin’ in my mom’s Plymouth Sundance, but my own truck. The other thing that’s changed is the number of wheels per head. There are four heads to eight wheels, and we’re here to ride the Phil Shao Memorial Skatepark. On bikes.
The park does not disappoint. There are a million kids trying tech ollie flip tricks around the perimeter of the park, but the bowl is what I’m about. Big and shapely with almost burlesque hips poured into her concrete, I’m in love as soon as I roll in. There are a few local bikers who have the place dialed, nonchalantly airing a few feet out and throwing the bars before heading back down the tranny. The only two skaters riding the bowl are a tall skinny teenager and his little sister, who looks to be about 10, and they have it on lockdown: lipslides on the spine, grinds, rock and rolls everything smooth and fast. "Yeah!" I yell as they take their runs, stoked on their skills.
I know the times have changed when I see the little girl come up out of the bowl in the $450,000 public piece of silky-smooth concrete perfection, walk over to her mother, who’s posted up on a ledge, get a cell phone and make a call. Not five minutes later there are seven (I counted) Redwood City police officers converging on the bench where my friends and I are sitting. They randomly collar my buddy Scott though I was the last one to drop in and write him a ticket for $100. I have to admit, I’m flabbergasted.
Guess what: skateboarding isn’t a crime anymore it’s gone mainstream. Successful companies hire lobbyists to promote the sport, and communities spend big bucks building new facilities for skaters. And now some skaters, many of them kids who never had to live in the underground world that I did, are using their legitimacy to push out the new outlaws people who ride BMX bikes.
It’s crazy two cultures that share so much, fighting over how many wheels they ride.
"Is that your daughter’s bike?"
The question comes from one of my coworkers, and, believe it or not, it’s not intended to be snarky. I can’t ride in public without someone saying "cute little bike," while giggling to themselves or laughing and pointing. Seeing a six-foot-tall, 200-pound, bald-headed, tattooed white dude on a "kid’s bike" is like being passed on the sidewalk by a bear on a unicycle. At one point reactions like these would’ve rubbed me the wrong way, but nowadays, I nod and smile. Sometimes, I try to explain what constitutes a "full grown" BMX bike. While it’s got small wheels 20 inches in diameter the top tube, from the seat to the stem, measures 21 inches, and the handlebars are considered pro-sized at eight inches high by 28 inches wide.
Bicycle motocross, or BMX, is purported to have started in 1963 when the Schwinn corporation of Chicago unveiled the Stingray, which was basically a downsized version of the company’s balloon-tired cruiser-type bikes. Kids pretended to be grown-ups by aping Roger DeCoster and other moto heroes launching their bikes off jumps, racing in empty fields and abandoned lots, and cranking wheelies down the sidewalks of Anytown, USA.
"It all began the way most individual sports start," motorcycle customizer Jesse James says in a voiceover at the beginning of the 2005 BMX nativity story/documentary Joe Kid on a Stingray, "kids pretending to be grown-ups, but acting like big kids."
I have been riding since I was seven. After three decades, one truism remains, and I can’t candy-coat it. I’ve got to speak it like a true BMXer: BMX is rad. It is and always has been an entity unto itself, progressing from wheelies, skids, and bombing hills to encompass myriad styles and surfaces, from streets to pools to dirt jumps to ramps to the balletic grace of flatland freestyle.
This summer, big kids on little bikes will be jumping 30-foot gaps at as many miles per hour as BMX pays homage to its racing roots at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. On June 12 in New York’s Central Park, Kevin Robinson will try to break the legendary Mat Hoffman’s record for the highest quarter-pipe air on a bike 26 feet, 6 inches.
It doesn’t take death-defying world records, the X Games, the Olympics, or the stupefaction of squares with cameras to make BMX legit. That feeling of overcoming fear and doubt by jumping a little farther, a little higher, the rush of nailing a trick, or carving a bowl, hasn’t changed in half a century. The legitimacy lies in that feeling, behind your breastbone, and it doesn’t change as you get older. Your wrists hurt, your ankles hurt, and your back hurts, but the feeling is the same. Kid’s bike? Hell yeah, it’s a kid’s bike.
It’s not as though I was blissfully unaware of a beef between bikers and skaters that day in Redwood City. Ask any BMXer to tell you a story of friction between the two and four-wheeled sets, and it’s not going to take them long to come up with something.
"When I was 12 years old, a skateboarder threw my bike out of the bowl at Ripon skatepark," says Jackson Ratima, now 19, a Daly City rider sponsored by Fit Bikes. "He was, like, 20 years old or something."
Tim "Wolfman" Harvey, 21, another up-and-coming pro, tells a similar story about a visit to the Bay Area from his native Massachusetts, when a local skater hassled him at the Novato skatepark. "I didn’t even know anything about California. It was my first time out bike riding, period. The guy was giving me all kinds of crap, yelling at me."
Ironically, Harvey, as friendly and easygoing a guy as you could hope to meet, almost turned pro for skateboarding before an ankle injury made it nearly impossible to ollie, an essential trick in street skating. He now lives in Petaluma and is a member of the painter’s union in San Francisco, where he’s a familiar face at street spots, but now on a bike. Back then, though, he "thought California was a scary place."
The Bay Area and SF in particular may be the worst place for bikers seeking a vibe-free session. "I’ve never experienced hostility like it is out here," Ratima says.
Smoldering after the Redwood City incident, I began to fixate on the "Skateboarding Is Not a Crime" slogan from my youth. Originally a bumper sticker made by Transworld Skateboarding magazine in the mid ’80s, Santa Cruz Skateboards currently makes a deck with that written on it, so the skate community has gotten a lot of mileage out of being oppressed.
"Skateboarding isn’t a crime?" I’d ask myself. You’re damned straight skateboarding isn’t a crime: it’s the law. BMX is a crime. There isn’t a biker alive who rides transition who hasn’t rolled into a taxpayer-funded park and had a knee-high grommet point to the sign and say, "Bikes aren’t allowed."
Not allowed, huh? Son, I skated my first pool when you were doing the backstroke in your papa’s ball bag.
Look: I love skateboarding and always will. Both skaters and bikers are doing the same thing, copping that same feeling rolling over the same terrain. The war makes no sense.
"We have religion and race and class dividing us. I refuse to be divided by what type of wheel size I have," says Jon Paul Bail, a local at Alameda’s Cityview skatepark.
Bail, 40, is the artist and pundit behind politicalgridlock.com. Through the Home Project, a program run through the Alameda Unified School District, Bail helped raise $150,000 to build the park, $8,000 of which came directly from his company’s coffers. He helped design the park, and he helped pour the concrete in the park, which opened in 1999. Mixed sessions of bikers and skaters were going down for six months with minor tensions but no major incidents when thenCity Attorney Carol Korade advised City Hall that mixed use was too dangerous, and shut the bikers out.
My call to Corinne Centeno, Redwood City’s Director of Parks, Recreation, and Community Services, got off to a rough start: "I understand [the Phil Shao Skatepark] is not bike-legal, right?"
"Right. It was built as a skatepark," she replied, subtly italicizing the first syllable with her tone of voice.
"It wasn’t designed for bikes," she repeated, before adding, "but their having been prohibited from the start hasn’t necessarily kept people out." In an effort to do just that, the city is building a fence around the park, with bids currently ranging from $23,000 to $60,000.
The semantic argument "it’s called a ‘skatepark,’ not a ‘bike park’<0x2009>" is usually reserved for laypeople who don’t know enough about skateboarding or bike riding to see its inherent lack of logic.
Drainage ditches are not called a "skating ditches," nor were they designed for skating. Swimming pools are not called "skating pools." Yet, therein lie the roots of the modern skatepark, along with full pipes, which are based on industrial-size drainage systems also not intended for wheels. Every day skateboarders and bikers transcend these limits through creative repurposing.
Collision, and the fear of collision, is the main thing public officials cite when shutting bikers out of parks. "It’s unnerving," Vancouver pro skater Alex Chalmers wrote in a 2004 Thrasher manifesto, "BMX Jihad: Keep It in the Dirt."
"BMXers cover so much ground so quickly, especially when they’re pedaling frantically to blast a transfer, that it’s particularly hard to gauge these collisions," he wrote.
But the fact is that in any given park BMXers and skaters take different lines, and the best way to acclimate each group to the other is through exposure. If bike riders are banned, it increases the risk of collisions when a few bikers decide to chance the ticket or brave the vibe-out and ride anyway. A lot of bikers hit parks early in the morning because they don’t want to deal with hassles. During the overlap in "shifts," this leads to bewildered skaters who aren’t used to the lines a biker takes, and vice versa.
And the head-on menace is greatly overstated, largely disappearing when a park is integrated, if only unofficially. At Cityview, the police have displayed somewhat less zeal in ticketing bikers during the past few years. "They treat us like gays in the military," says Bail. "Don’t ask, don’t tell." And yet everyone manages to coexist.
At the new $850,000 skatepark in Benicia, which opened in October, integration isn’t a big deal. "From its conception, we designed it to be a skateboard park and also for bikes," says Mike Dotson, assistant director of parks and recreation. Technically, the park has designated bike hours, but since it’s largely unsupervised, there’s a mildly laissez-faire approach to enforcement. "In the very beginning there was a lot of concern about the use of both bikes and skateboards," Dotson says, stating that the park was packed the first few months. "Initially we had one or two calls on it. Since then I can say I haven’t had any calls on it in relation to bikes and skateboards being in it at the same time or other complaints."
And there are mixed-use parks all over the world, as far away as Thailand and as nearby as Oregon: "You go to Oregon, and you can ride wherever you want," says a stunned Maurice Meyer, 41, lifelong San Francisco resident and founding member of legendary bike and skate trick team the Curb Dogs. Long Beach, Las Vegas, Phoenix, even Alex Chalmers’ hometown of Vancouver all have parks where bikes and skates legally ride at the same time. What’s up with the Bay?
Lawyers, insurance underwriters, and city hall types may never understand how a park works. "It’s out of ignorance," Bail says. "To them it looks like chaos. To anyone who has skate etiquette which is everyone we all take turns."
Besides, let’s face facts: a skatepark is a dangerous place to different degrees at different times, and for different reasons. "I swear to God, every time I go to the skatepark I see a hundred boards flying all over the place," Ratima says, "and I’ve never seen a bike go flying and land on a guy’s head." It’s not an inflatable jumpy house it’s fun, but it’s not made out of cotton balls and your mother isn’t here. Usually.
Rose Dennis, press liaison for the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department, seemed baffled that someone would want to ride a bicycle inside the skatepark part of the new Potrero del Sol. Perhaps as a way of distracting me from my damn-fool idea, she kept hyping the park’s "other amenities."
I live three blocks from Golden Gate Park if I want to play Frisbee, I’m not going to drive across town. I want to ride. When I brought up the possibility of scheduling bike-only sessions in the yet-to-be opened park, she suggested I draft a letter to general manager Yomi Agunbiade, before adding that "the facility wasn’t designed for that type of recreation."
When I (graciously, I thought) let her know that it would be not only possible to ride a bike there, but highly gratifying, she got a little heated: "At the end of the day, the buck stops with us. If one of you guys breaks your skull open and you’re bleeding all over the place, believe me, no one’s going to have any sympathy for Rec and Park if they make really nonjudicious decisions."
In other words, like a lot of city officials, she’s worried about getting sued.
But you know what? There’s actually less chance a BMXer will successfully sue the city. I give you California Government Code Section 831.7, which states the following: "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable to any person who participates in a hazardous recreational activity … who knew or reasonably should have known that the hazardous recreational activity created a substantial risk of injury to himself or herself and was voluntarily in the place of risk."
The law lists "bicycle racing or jumping" as being a "hazardous recreational activity." It’s on a fairly extensive list, along with diving boards, horseback riding, and the ever-popular rocketeering, skydiving, and spelunking, which, as I’m sure you’ve heard, are all the rage with the kids these days much more popular than BMX.
But the words "skateboarding," "skateboarder," and "skateboard" are not listed anywhere in the text of the Hazardous Recreational Activities law, commonly called the HRA law. In fact, the International Association of Skateboard Companies has been lobbying to get the bill amended to specifically include "skateboarding" since 1995, when Assemblymember Bill Morrow (R-San Diego) took up the issue. Morrow’s bill was rejected by the state Senate Judiciary Committee in 1996. In 1997, Morrow and skateboard association lobbyist Jim Fitzpatrick gave up on amending the HRA and instead pushed Assembly Bill 1296, which added Provision 115800 to the state’s Health and Safety Code, which states, in part and in much less forceful language without using the word "liable," for instance that owners or operators of local skateparks that are not supervised must require skaters to wear helmets, elbow pads, and knee pads, and that they must post a sign stating said requirement.
It doesn’t say anything about "if one of you guys breaks your skull open and you’re bleeding all over the place" while wearing a helmet, then you can’t hold the operator liable.
When I asked San Francisco Deputy City Attorney Virginia Dario-Elizando how the law might apply to the city’s skateparks, she told me, "This question has never come up. I must tell you, I’ve never even seen the rules for the skateparks no one’s ever asked me to look at them."
BMXers are willing to compromise if that’s what it takes. In May, San Jose opened the 68,000-square-foot Lake Cunningham skatepark, built by the same design firm (Wormhoudt) as the Benicia park at a price of $4.7 million, and the place has bike hours. Like any park, there are rules. Like some parks, there’s supervision, so the rules are enforced: separate bike sessions; helmet, elbow, and knee pads required at all times; brakes required on bikes; no smoking; no songs with swear words over the park soundsystem; no bikes in the three bowls with pool coping even though they only allow plastic pegs, which are undoubtedly softer on coping than metal skateboard trucks … it’s a long list of restrictions. It’s inconvenient for guys who don’t like pads or don’t run brakes, and there’s some griping, but we’ve got our eyes on the prize: the place is amazing, with a huge full pipe, massive vert bowls, and a decent street course.
I would like skaters to realize a couple of things: skating and BMX aren’t so different from each other, at least in the feeling each gives you, right there, behind your sternum, where your heart beats.
Bikers are going to ride no matter what, just like skaters are going to skate. Legal or not, we’re not going to go away. "I got arrested for riding there when I was 14," Ratima says of the Daly City skatepark. "They took my bike and threw it in the back of the car. I just kept going every day, and finally they just gave up."
"I’ve ridden bikes on vert," Thrasher editor Jake Phelps tells me during a phone conversation. "I can ride a bike in a pool, I can do that. I’m stoked when I ride a bike in a pool. Feels hella fun to me. Catching air on a bike is awesome, no doubt about that."
This, from the longtime editor of the bible of the "fuck BMX" set. It’s either baffling or heartening. I can’t decide which. "I don’t mind people that are just regular," he says. "If they’re skateboard people or they’re bike people too, I’ll respect anybody that respects me."
That’s what it comes down to: respect. I respect the fact that skateboarders did not come into this age of skateparks easily. I faded out when there was nothing, and I came back when they were in small towns across America, and I missed all the politicos and dreary meetings. It’s time for bikers to stop feeling like second-class citizens and demand a seat at the table. In the words of Black Flag, it’s time to rise above.
So breaking out the absentees, Sandoval is winning 55 percent of the Election Day vote. That should put him in a strong position going into the fall runoff. There’s a third candidate in the race, Mary Mallen, who is at around 14 percent, so the incumbent, Judge Mellon, will get far less than a majority vote, indicating that most of the voters want someone else.
On Prop. A: The election-day results have Prop. A winning by 74 percent. So that should make up for the absentees quite nicely. I think A is now going to win.
We have about 20 percent of the vote in now, and here’s how it looks:
Prop. A has gone up to 63 percent, and will probably pass.
Sandoval has picked up a bunch, is now at almost 40 percent, and now looks to be coming in first in that race, but not with enough votes to avoid a runoff.
F is still losing, G still winning, and that won’t change.
Joe Nation is now leading Mark Leno — not in San Francisco but district wide. Must be a bunch of north bay precincts reporting, because he’s doing well in SF.
County Central Committee, D 13:
Campos
Chiu
Katz
Peskin
Spanjian
Haaland
Wiener
Mandelman
Walker
Daly
Goldstein
Julian
This is a near-sweep at this point for the Peskin-Daly progressive slate; the only two people winning who weren’t on the slate are Leslie Katz (former supervisor) and Scott Wiener, the DCCC chair. So this is looking very good right now, and could be a bright spot for progressives looking toward the fall supervisorial elections.
The early absentees tell us a few things, and Chris Bowman, a GOP consulant who is generally right on his projections, gave us his hit, and here’s how it looks:
Prop. A, the parcel tax for schools, is going to be very close; it’s at 60 percent now and that will be a squeaker.
F and G are over. F lost, G won.
Sandoval may come in first, or at worst a close second, and that race will go to a November runoff.
Prop. E (fuck PG&E) is going to win.
There are some early returns from Marin, and it looks pretty good for Leno — he’s at 31 percent in Marin, with Migden at a low 22.4 and Nation just at 45. So it’s early, but the odds of Leno pulling this out are getting better.
Whoops, read that one wrong. Gerardo Sandoval is at 37.09 and Thomas Mellon is at 48.04, with Mary Mallen at 14.44. So Sandoval is behind. But since his numbers will rise and Mellon’s will fall as the election-day results come in, it looks like a November runoff between the two.
Remember, these are early absentees, but here’s who’s winning at the DCCC right now in District 13:
Leslie Katz
David Chiu
David Campos
Laura Spanjian
Aaron Peskin
Scott Wiener
Robert Haaland
Rafael Mandelman
Holli Their
Debra Walker
Michael Goldstein
Joe Julian
So far, it’s most incumbents and the progressive “slate” isn’t exactly winning. Chris Daly, for example, hasn’t even made the cut. But the night is young and that will probably change.
Well, the minute we posted that last entry we got some absentee results — and it looks like Lennar’s money carried the day. Prop. G is winning handily, Prop. F is going down hard.
But there’s fascinating news: Prop. E, the PUC reform measure that PG&E spent a fortune trying to kill, is ahead even in the absentees and will probably win.
Gerardo Sandoval is well ahead in the judicial race, but there may still be a runoff.
Leno is beating Migden handily in the city, and Joe Nation is way behind. That’s good news for Leno, who needs a big win in SF to overcome what will probably be a Nation advantage in the north counties.
Talking to Jim Stearns, one of the political consultants involved in what now will be the most expensive ballot campaign ever, I got an interesting perspective on G and F. Stearns says all the polling showed the measures moving together — when the campaign pushed Yes on G, the Yes on F vote moved up, too. When they tried to trash Prop. F, the Prop. G vote went down.
So it’s entirely possible that both measures will pass — which will, of course, infuriate Lennar Corp.