Mark Leno Archives — Page 11 of 18 — San Francisco Bay Guardian Archive 1966

Blaming the system

-

March 3, 2009

› rebeccab@sfbg.com

The Grand Sheraton Hotel in downtown Sacramento was buzzing Feb. 24 as some 400 conference-goers representing myriad geographies and political perspectives gathered in one room to tackle an enormous question: should California’s constitution get an overhaul?

Hosted by the Bay Area Council, a San Francisco-based business group, the summit introduced the idea of staging a statewide constitutional convention that would grant Californians the opportunity to make major revisions to the state constitution and streamline the government reform process.

The council hopes to place a measure on the ballot as early as November 2010 to ask voters if a convention should be called. If the effort gets a green light, it would mark the first time in 130 years that a meeting of this kind was convened in California.

The state’s government is dysfunctional, Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters opined during the summit. Full of stakeholders with disparate viewpoints who are too often unwilling to collaborate, he said, the Legislature either tends to roll out "unworkable monstrosities" or have its efforts stalled by a small number of representatives who disagree with the majority. "The problem isn’t really which party is in charge," he said. "It’s the fundamental structure of the government."

The summit attracted diverse interests ranging from Chevron Corp., an icon of big business in the Bay Area, to the Courage Campaign, a left-leaning political organization cast in the mold of Moveon.org. Despite being divided on other issues, all parties seemed to be in agreement on the main point that California’s government is desperately in need of a fix.

"I think of the government in California as being like the Winchester House — you keep adding rooms, but there are no corridors," Sen. Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) joked at the summit, referring to a historic mansion in San Jose renowned for its monstrous size and complete lack of a floor plan.

The idea for holding a convention was first floated last summer, when Bay Area Council President and CEO Jim Wunderman published an editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle titled "California Government Has Failed Us." Wunderman struck a nerve, and organizations such as Common Cause and the League of Women Voters signed up to partner with the business group to launch the constitutional convention effort. Clamor for government reform got louder still in recent weeks, as a disapproving public witnessed legislators sink into a debacle over the budget deal.

An arduous budget debate further intensified when it came to extracting the last vote needed to achieve the required two-thirds majority. The Democratic majority wound up negotiating with Sen. Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria), who turned his vote into leverage to force concessions on his own demands. Maldonado was able to single-handedly eliminate a proposed 12-cent increase on the gas tax, and he stipulated that an initiative be placed on the May ballot for an open primary.

"The budget was held hostage to right-wing ideology when the people of the state were demanding a real solution to a real problem," says Lenny Goldberg, executive director of the California Tax Reform Association and the owner of a lobbying firm. "For example, the only way they could get the votes was to give away huge corporate loopholes."

The lesson learned? "We have tied ourselves in knots with the two-thirds vote requirement," declared Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, a moderate Democrat and gubernatorial candidate, spurring a round of applause at the summit. Garamendi called for "majority rule, plain and simple, on every issue." He also suggested extended term limits, and transitioning to a 120-member unicameral legislature to allow representatives to better represent smaller districts.

Other ideas for reform that got bandied about during the summit included reinventing election procedures and considering approaches such as instant-runoff voting, establishing proportional representation, changing the number of signatures needed to place an initiative on the ballot, and establishing an automatic review process for state agencies.

In order to hold a convention, California voters would have to approve two separate ballot initiatives. The first would create an amendment to the current constitution allowing voters to call the convention, while the second would call the actual convention. Both questions could be put to voters on the same ballot, according to the Bay Area Council. Any changes made to the constitution would then have to be ratified by voters.

The process of calling a convention is clear enough, but questions abound on how to proceed from there. For example, how would convention delegates be selected? How many would attend? How would the organizers ensure inclusiveness across ethnic, gender, and economic boundaries? Would the convention open up the entire constitution to debate, or would parties agree to narrow the scope to a few key issues? How would the convention itself escape the same gridlock that critics say has rendered the Legislature dysfunctional?

Without hammering out the fine points, it’s hard to know whether the enthusiasm exhibited at the summit could survive the nitty-gritty details of actually going through with a convention. It’s also too early to say whether progressives could emerge from such a process satisfied with the results.

Assemblymember Tom Ammiano adopted a wait-and-see attitude toward the constitutional convention. "I wouldn’t tell you at this point I’m enthusiastic about it because it could be too much blah-blah and not enough action," he told the Guardian. "I do definitely support budget reform — I’m going to make that a priority — and really want to look at the budget infrastructure, certainly the two-thirds majority. I think we need to deliberate on it and make certain that it wouldn’t have any unintended consequences."

Sen. Mark Leno shared Ammiano’s view that the two-thirds majority requirement tops the list of problems. "I think we could take some modest but profound steps before we open up an entire potential Pandora’s box," he said of the convention idea. "I don’t wish to dampen the spirits of our friends at the Bay Area Council. Their intentions are very good. But should it go forward, the devil will be in the details."

Goldberg took a similar stance. "The biggest problem is the two-thirds vote requirement for taxes and a budget," he told the Guardian. "If a constitutional convention is the way that issue gets resolved, that’s positive. But the question is, how long is that going to take? How are they going to do it? There are so many unanswered questions that I would say, if that’s the only way to deal with the two-thirds vote, let’s do it."

Robert Cruickshank, public policy director at the Courage Campaign and a blogger with the political Web site Calitics.com, said he feels confident that a convention is a worthwhile pursuit for progressives. His organization conducted a poll of its membership to gauge whether there was progressive support for the idea, he said, and results showed that 92 percent of respondents supported it.

For his part, Wunderman emphasized the convention as a tool that could be used by voters rather than elected officials in Sacramento. "I’m excited about changing the game, changing the rules," he told the Guardian. "And I’m more confident than ever that if you lead Californians to revise their constitution, once they see it, they’ll know what they have to do, and they’ll do it. And the fact that it was them that did it will give rise to support for the product."

New push for Harvey Milk Day

-

March 2, 2009

1

By Steven T. Jones
Last year, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed legislation by Mark Leno (then an Assembly member and now a Senator) to establish May 22 as “Harvey Milk Day,” honoring the late San Francisco supervisor’s birthday with a “day of special significance” marking his causes and encouraging schools to teach children about his life.
Tomorrow, Leno will try again with Senate Bill 572, and this time he’s appealing with Schwarzenegger’s Hollywood side by tapping Sean Penn, who just won the Best Actor Academy Award for his title role in “Milk.” Leno and Penn will appear at 11 a.m. tomorrow at Tosca Cafe (242 Columbus) and will be joined by Assembly member Tom Ammiano, Geoff Kors of Equality California, activist Cleve Jones (a character in Milk and consultant to the film), and Milk’s nephew Stuart MIlk.
Mindful of not pushing too far in tough fiscal times, Milk Day would not be an official holiday from work, but it would finally recognize a civil rights leader who was ahead of his time.

A couple of interesting candidates

-

February 20, 2009

3

By Tim Redmond

A couple of interesting candidates looking at runs for those even-numbered supervisorial seats in 2010.

In district two, where the progressives have never had much of a chance (Gavin Newsom, then Michela Alioto-Pier), Janet Reilly, who ran a strong race against Fiona Ma for state Assembly, told me she’s looking at the race. She’d be well financed – her husband, Clint Reilly, is one of the top campaign donors in the city and she’s proven she can raise money on her own. She’s clearly not as far to the left as John Avalos or Eric Mar, but it’s a conservative district – and she’s a smart, articulate woman with strong policy ideas who would probably vote with the progressives some of the time and would be independent of the mayor.

Then there’s district 6. I’m starting to sense that Jane Kim isn’t pushing herself out there as a candidate right now — but another activist is, and his campaign raises some interesting questions.

Paul Hogarth, managing editor of BeyondChron, an online newspaper, is planning to file a statement of intent to run sometime this spring. “Yes, the rumor is true. I’m the candidate who can get things done for the District — having worked in the community for about 9 years,” he told me by email.

I like Paul, and I like BeyondChron, which by any standard is part of the progressive community. We’ve had some disagreements, but that’s pretty common in the San Francisco left.

And he’s certainly qualified – he’s a lawyer, a former Berkeley Rent Board commissioner, and has been a tenant organizer with the Tenderloin Housing Clinic. He’s also been pretty active in the Democratic Party and has shown some solid journalistic instincts and abilities.

So I just assumed that he would take a leave of absence from Beyond Chron when he launched his campaign. I mean, it’s a brave new world, and the line between journalists and activists has been getting pretty blurry, but I’m not sure how you can be the managing editor of a political newspaper, and actively report on and write about local politicians and campaigns, when you’re actually running for office yourself.

But no – when I asked Paul about that, he told me he saw no conflict at all. I tried to reach his boss, Randy Shaw, by phone but after we played tag a little, I went to email and asked:

“Hi, Randy, sorry we didn’t connect by phone today. I hear Paul is running for D6 supe; how you going to handle that at BeyondChron? Can he possibly cover local politics while he’s running for office? Strikes me as a problem.”

Shaw’s response:

“Why?

I pursued it: “Well, one reason is that people will think he’s promoting his own interests by the way he covers candidates and issues. For example, there might be a perception that he was writing more positive things about people who endorsed him. It’s pretty basic journalistic ethics. I have immense respect for Paul, and I don’t think he’d do anything unethical, but in the media. appearance matters. I know you aren’t a traditional news outlet, but people trust and respect you in part for your independence.”

Shaw: “This recalls a past discussion I’ve had with the Guardian, where it became clear we have different views of activists as journalists.”

I don’t recall that discussion, although I’m sure it happened, since I talk about this stuff all the time. I am an activist and a journalist, and the Guardian is a newspaper that cares about and promotes causes. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with BeyondChron, which is part of Randy Shaw’s Tenderloin Housing Clinic shop, covering the city from a pro-tenant, progressive perspective. I’m glad BeyondChron is around.

But there’s a difference between writing about and promoting causes that you care about and promoting something that gives you, personally, a direct financial or career benefit. How will we know that a piece Paul Hogarth writes about a local politician isn’t tainted by the fact that he wants that person to endorse him?

Paul seems to be aware of the problem; when he wrote about Mark Leno in the state Senate primary, he was careful to run disclosures like

EDITOR’S NOTE: As a private citizen, Paul Hogarth has endorsed Mark Leno in the State Senate race. He does not play an advisory role in the campaign, nor did he coordinate with Leno’s staff in writing this article.

Fair enough. Full disclosure is good. But what’s he going to do now – stop writing about local politics? Or end all his articles with

EDITORS NOTE: Paul Hogarth is running for supervisor in District 6, but none of the commentary about any other office holder here should be construed as a possible pitch for an endorsement?

And what if one of the other candidates argues that his paid promotional platform is in fact an in-kind campaign contribution? I’m not sure I’d buy that – there’s a First Amendment issue here – but the Ethics Commission might consider it worth investigation, which would be a huge distraction to both the candidate and his online newspaper.

It’s going to be tricky. That’s all I’m saying.

Talk about making sausage ….

-

February 19, 2009

2

By Tim Redmond

The budget deal taht came down early this morning is ugly. One Republican, Sen. Abel Maldonado, was able to hijack the process and make some crazy demands. He singlehandly forced the Democrats to get rid of a 12 cent increase in the gas tax, costing the state billions. Then he forced the Democrats to accept a statewide ballot measure for an open primary system, which the progressives hate. (Open primaries allow Republicans to vote for Democrats who are more moderate; Nancy Pelosi went to Congress in an open primary, beating then-Sup. Harry Britt. Britt won among the Democrats, but Pelosi got enough Republican votes to give her the job.) Assemblymember Tom Ammiano told me the budget package was bad enough but he simply couldn’t swallow the open primary measure. “A lot of us didn’t vote for it,” he said. But it passed anyway, with the simple majority it needed, and that (along with a long list of other awful stuff) bought Malonado’s vote.

Ammiano’s statement on the deal reflects what a lot of progessives think:

No one is happy about the service cuts, layoffs and tax increases that were a necessary part of this plan. In voting for this budget, I want to acknowledge that we have made painful cuts to vital human services that serve the poor and the elderly as well as deep reductions in education spending for our schools. We did so with great reluctance in the hope that some of these cuts will be restored through the recently passed federal stimulus bill.

The respite we have after closing this budget shortfall is short-lived and there is a long, difficult road ahead to restore our fiscal stability. The approved plan did take a step in that direction by including a rainy day fund that will help us offset budget cuts in future years

Brian at Calitics has a nice line here about Maldonado’s hypocrisy. And there’s a nice analysis here of what the package really looks like.

State Sen. Mark Leno told me that part of the problem was that the Republican caucus was a mess — the GOP leader, Dave Codgill of Modesto, was part of the budget negotiations, but when he agreed to accept tax increases, many of his colleagues refused to go along. Leno says Codgill was a “profile in courage” — he knew that voting for tax hikes would harm, and possibly doom, his career as a Republican in a conservative district, but he did what had to be done to keep the state solvent. And when the GOP lawmakers balked, Leno announced on the floor that the should either follow their leader or find a new one. A few hours later, that’s what happened — Codgill was removed as minority leader and replaced with an even-more-ardent anti-tax guy, Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth of Riverside County, who wanted to scrap the entire budget and start over with a “no-new-taxes” plan. That was just pure political posturing — it was never going to happen.

What a mess. I’m with Jean Ross of the California Budget Project, who says that , “If this year’s budget negotiations don’t increase public support for reducing the vote requirement for approval of a budget and tax increases, it is not clear what will.”

Notes from the Politics blog

-

February 17, 2009

0

If you’ve been reading the Guardian‘s Politics blog, you know that battles between and within some major California labor unions — including Service Employees International Union, SEIU’s United Healthcare Workers, the newly formed National Union of Healthcare Workers, and the California Nurses Association — are dividing the movement at a crucial time for progressive politics.

From important federal legislation such as the landmark Employee Free Choice Act to state legislation like the single-payer healthcare bill that Sen. Mark Leno plans to reintroduce in the coming months, philosophical and turf battles between unions have hurt labor’s ability to successfully counter corporate power.

"The fight inside SEIU [involving all four unions mentioned above] is one that is going to hurt our ability to pursue and pass legislation important not just to health care workers but workers in general," labor writer David Bacon told the Guardian. "There’s lots of energy going into jurisdictional battles and I think employers will use this fight against us … Sometimes it feels like we’re going backward."

But the battles continue. On Feb. 18, NUHW plans to picket outside UHW’s Oakland offices, protesting SEIU’s efforts to hinder NUHW organizing efforts (which we discuss more online). Philosophical differences between SEIU (which has close relationships with national corporate and political leaders) and unions like NUHW and CNA (which take more adversarial roles with employers and push for fundamental reforms such as single-payer health care) animate the debate.

Meanwhile, even more radicalized unions such as the International Longshore Workers Union have increasingly taken strong stances on immigrant rights and social justice issues like the BART police shooting of passenger Oscar Grant, which they discussed at a Feb. 14 rally that featured UC Santa Cruz professor and activist Angela Davis.

For more on the unfolding labor movement battles and what it means for progressive politics, keep reading the Guardian‘s Politics blog.

The state budget deal

-

February 12, 2009

0

By Tim Redmond

The state Legislature is scheduled to vote Friday on a budget deal that nobody likes.. I’m told that labor groups will urge Democratic legislators to oppose the deal; it’s not even clear that Republicans — whose leaders helped negotiate it — will vote for the proposal.

The GOP members still insist, for the most part, that they won’t accept new taxes, and this plan has $14.3 billion in new taxes, some of which are pretty good. It calls for a 12-cent increase in the gas tax, which is a great way to raise money and should be higher, and a slight increase in the car tax (ditto). I don’t like the 1-cent sales tax hike, and while I’m all for raising income taxes on the rich, a 2.5-percent across-the-board surtax isn’t even remotely fair (esp. since the higher earners, who tend to itemize deductions, will wind up deducting the higher tax from the federal income taxes, while the average person won’t get that benefit.) Still: at least some of the budget gap will be addressed with new revenues (which the mayor of San Francisco can’t seem to accept as a solution back home.)

The cuts are awful. The schools will get hammered . According to the Sacramento Bee

Welfare recipients and low-income disabled, blind and elderly individuals would not receive cost-of-living increases

which is awfully harsh.

And it goes downhill from there — among other things, the budget would eliminate state support for local transit systems, which is going to be a brutal hit for San Francisco.

So the more liberal Dems are going to get pressure to say no, and even the Republican leaders who worked on the deal won’t promise to vote for it. But as state Sen. Mark Leno told me:

“Given the nature of the $42 billion deficit, our budget resolution is by definition painful all around. And we have to move forward to get the state off life support.”

Why we’re broke

-

February 10, 2009

1

By Tim Redmond

State Sen. Mark Leno explained to me a few days ago that, despite the GOP’s claim that California has “a spending problem,” when you actually look at how state spending has increased over the past 20 years, you get a very different picture. Actually, after accounting for inflation and population growth, state spending would have been relatively flat — save for the insane prison expansion and the governor’s car-tax cut.

There’s an interesting analysis of all this at Calitics, which looks at the Monterey Herald’s story on Where the Money Went. Bottom line: The state’s problem — as I keep saying — is that Californians want all kinds of services — good education, parks, roads, transportation systems and yes, sadly, prisons — but nobody wants to pay for them. It’s expensive to run the world’s eighth-largest economy, a state with more people than most countries and a wide range of social problems. And there is plenty of money floating around — even in this economy, California is a very wealthy state.

But as long as we aren’t willing to raise taxes on the wealthy and look at issues like Prop. 13, these budget problems aren’t going to go away.

Newsom’s new spirit of cooperation …

-

January 30, 2009

0

By Tim Redmond

… Is utter bullshit.

The mayor proclaimed that he’s going to try harder to work with the Board of Supervisors, and that he sees David Chiu as much more of a potential ally than outgoing board prez Aaron Peskin — but already we’re seeing what that means. Consider:

The supervisors voted 8-0 last week to nominate Ross Mirkarimi for a coveted slot on the California Coastal Commission. It’s an important job, and requires someone with a strong comittment to environmental issues. So what does Newsom do? He ignores the board vote, refuses to defer to the unanimous wishes of Mirkarimi’s colleagues, and instead puts forward Michela Alioto-Pier.

That’s Alioto-Pier, who loves developers and is among the worst environmental votes on the board. Alioto-Pier, who got appointed to the Golden Gate Bridge District a while back then missed half the meetings. Alioto-Pier, who would never get the support of more than two of her colleagues for any kind of important or high-profile job.

The final decision is in the hands of State Sen. President Darryl Steinberg, who has a few more pressing things to think about at the moment.

But the Sierra Club is supporting Mirkarimi. Assembly member Tom Ammiano is supporting Mirkarimi. State Sen. Leland Yee is supporting Mirkarimi. I haven’t been able to reach Sen. Mark Leno yet, but he ought to be supporting Mirkarimi.

Which leaves the mayor defying the supes, defying most of the state Legislative delegation and pushing an unqualified candidate in what can only be an F.U. to the supervisors he so recently pledged to work with. (I emailed his press office and asked why Newsom did this, but they haven’t gotten back to me.)

Some spirit of cooperation.

UPDATE: Leno tells me he is supporting Mirkarimi. But there’s a new twist: The mayor CAN’T nominate Alioto-Pier for the Coastal Commission. He doesn’t have the legal authority. It turns out that in a city and county like San Francisco, nominations can only be made by the supervisors. Government Code Section 50279.2 states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, in any county in which there is only one incorporated city, the legislative body of such city is hereby created and shall serve as the city selection committee

Newsom didn’t check before he put the word out, and now he looks like a fool. In fact, I’m told his office is now trying to pretend they never nominated Alioto-Pier in the first place. (Not that the mayor ever worried about things like state law in managing his office.

Hell of a job our guy is doing running this town.

Strange bedfellows

-

January 28, 2009

0

› news@sfbg.com

GREEN CITY San Francisco’s bicycle community found itself in the strange position of encouraging Superior Court Judge Peter Busch — someone many cyclists revile for his strict enforcement of a far-reaching injunction against bike projects in the city — to reject a city-sponsored bike safety proposal during a Jan. 22 hearing. It was one more sign of the desperation bicyclists and city officials are feeling over the three-year-old ban on all things bike-related, from new lanes to simple sidewalk racks (see “Stationary biking,” 5/16/07).

Judge Busch denied a city motion asking for the authority to make safety improvements at intersections that have proven dangerous to bicyclists, as well as a specific proposal by the Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) to remove the bike lane at the most dangerous of those intersections, on Market Street at Octavia Boulevard, where 15 bicyclists have been hit by cars making illegal right turns onto the freeway since the revamped intersection opened in September 2005.

But the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition and other bicyclists opposed the MTA proposal, arguing it would be more dangerous and holding a Jan. 16 rally at the site, which drew several supportive local politicians, including Sen. Mark Leno, Assembly Member Tom Ammiano, and Sups. Ross Mirkarimi, David Campos, and Bevan Dufty. “As people who ride through that intersection every single day, we believe the proposal would have made the intersection more dangerous. So I’m really relieved that the judge saw that,” SFBC director Leah Shahum told us.

She was less pleased with the judge’s refusal to relax the injunction, which stems from a legal challenge to the San Francisco Bicycle Plan. San Francisco resident Rob Anderson and attorney Mary Miles successfully sued the city in June 2006, arguing that the plan was hasty and did not include an environmental impact report (EIR), as required by state law, to determine how the plan would affect traffic, neighborhoods, businesses, and the environment.

“This case has been very discouraging because there are a handful of activists against bicyclists in the city,” City Attorney’s Office spokesperson Matt Dorsey said. “The hearing showed that the city has to go to court any time it wants to improve the streets for bicyclists.”

Although Judge Busch denied the city’s request to remove the bike lane, he hinted that the injunction would probably be lifted this spring with the completion of the Bike Plan’s EIR. “There was a strong message from the judge that he sees the bigger picture about getting the EIR done. It just needs to be complete and fair and accurate. Then the city can get back to work making the streets safer,” Shahum said.

Both Anderson and the SFBC, who usually agree on little, agreed on the judge’s latest ruling. Anderson advocates maintaining streets for cars and pedestrians, while the SFBC works to make roads safer for bicycles and encouraging bicycling as an important transportation option. Shahum urges city officials to rethink their approach to make Market and Octavia safer. “The city really does need to move on to the next steps to make the intersection better,” she said.

Although the number of bicyclists in San Francisco has doubled in recent years in light of volatile gasoline prices, the economic crisis, and greater awareness of global climate change, Anderson continues to argue that bicyclists will always be a minority interest, even in San Francisco.

“We have to make the streets as safe as possible without strangling the rest of the traffic,” Anderson told the Guardian. “Only a small percentage of the population in San Francisco use bicycles as their main mode of transportation. It’s not fair for the bike people to design the streets just to benefit them.”

Dorsey and Deputy City Attorney Audrey Pearson oppose Anderson, who has said bicycling is an inherently dangerous activity that the city shouldn’t be promoting. “As a policy, the city tries to discourage cars in San Francisco,” Dorsey said, referring to the longstanding “transit first” policies.

Now that the public comment period for the Bike Plan’s Draft EIR is over and Judge Busch has ruled to keep the bike lane at Market and Octavia, all parties are looking ahead to spring when the court is expected to lift the injunction on improving bike safety in San Francisco, unleashing nearly 60 new bike projects. That is, unless Anderson and Miles can find a way to stop them.

Conservatism’s last stand?

-

December 17, 2008

0

As Tom Ammiano moved from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to the California Assembly at the start of the month, he went from the budgetary frying pan right into fiscal fire, a place where the Republican Party’s "no new taxes" pledge has finally turned the political heat up to an unbearable level.

"I think the state’s road is very, very difficult, and the city’s road is very difficult," Ammiano told the Guardian. "There is a failure of leadership on [Gov.] Arnold [Schwarzenegger’s] part. I’m not giving [Mayor Gavin] Newsom an A+, but he at least came to the board."

The difference lies with the anti-tax pledge by the influential right-wing group Americans for Tax Reform that all Republican legislators have signed. Combined with the requirement for two-thirds of the Legislature to approve state budgets, the pledge has made it impossible to close a state budget deficit pegged at $40 billion over the next 18 months, a gap that could shut down state government by March.

"No matter how nice the Republican next to me is, or how gay friendly, they’re doctrinaire and they have everyone by the cojones," Ammiano said.

Senator Mark Leno says now is the time for Democrats to aggressively fight back against an inflexible anti-tax stand that has eroded critical government services for a generation and has now finally reached a crisis point. The conservative crusade has been led largely by ATR head Grover Norquist, who once famously said he wants to shrink government to the level where he can drown it in the bathtub.

"Every Republican has signed a pledge to someone who wants to drown government in a bathtub — Grover Norquist. So nothing will happen until we rip up those pledges," Leno told me, noting that the two-thirds vote margin is just three Republicans each in the Assembly and Senate. "Six human beings are bringing us to our knees."

Even the conservative editorial page writers of the San Francisco Examiner (who endorsed John McCain for president) on Dec. 15 wrote, "the deficit has become so overpowering that — hate it all we want — California cannot continue functioning in 2009 without at least temporary tax raises."

Yet Norquist and the Republican legislators in his thrall haven’t softened their position one bit and instead hope to win deep cuts with this game of brinksmanship. "Now it’s up to the governor to come up with a budget that doesn’t borrow money and doesn’t raise taxes," Norquist told the Guardian.

He said the problem is that California hasn’t adopted a system of making a searchable, detailed list of all government expenditures available to the public, as they have in states like Texas, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Alaska.

"Ralph Nader and I have joined in sending three letters to your governor asking them to go transparent," he told us. "To say you’ve cut the budget as much as possible without having 30 million Californians help look at what makes sense and how to cut the budget is not serious. There’s not been a serious effort in California to scrub the budget, period."

Norquist did not return Guardian calls with follow-up questions about the fact that few credible government watchers think the budget gap can be closed with cuts alone or whether the current standoff — which even Schwarzenegger blamed on legislative Republicans — could hasten the demise of conservatism. But for now, conservatives are standing firm.

Senate Republican leader Dave Cogdill put out a statement saying, "Raising taxes doesn’t solve the underlying problem of California’s budget, which is the state spends more than it takes in." His statement may not be true — after all, raising taxes does indeed address that problem — but his caucus is sticking to it for now.

"Republicans remain strong against tax increases and that’s particularly important now when the nation is facing a recession," Sabrina Demayo Lockhart, press secretary for the Senate Republican Caucus, told the Guardian.

Leno called the tax pledge "childish and irresponsible," and akin to Democrats saying they won’t consider any spending cuts. "What kind of honest negotiations can there be when they’ve signed that pledge?" Leno said.

Lockhart countered that, "we’re bargaining in good faith for California taxpayers." Asked about the potentially devastating impact to the economy of shutting down all state spending and projects, Lockhart denied the Republicans were being irresponsible: "The responsible thing to do is project California taxpayers and jobs."

The Legislative Analyst’s Office last year put out a report entitled California’s Tax System: A Primer in which it wrote "California’s tax burden is about average," and in fact less than the industrial states’ average of under $12 for every $100 of personal income. And US tax rates are about 15 percent less than those in the European Union.

Leno has reached out to business leaders to have them try to talk some sense into the Republicans. Ironically, despite the Republicans rationalizing their pledge in the name of not wanting to hurt economic growth, the collapse of the bond market combined with the budget impasse threatens to cut off all state spending and send the already weakened economy into a nose dive.

"I wouldn’t think that anyone with a business mind or business concerns would in any way support the status quo right now," Leno said.

Leno said that even the Chambers of Commerce in San Francisco and Los Angeles are advocating for a reinstatement of the vehicle license fee, something that Schwarzenegger has voiced openness to even though his crusade against it helped sweep him into office five years ago. LAO figures show the lack of a VLF, by the end of the current fiscal year, will have cost the state $43.3 billion since it was repealed.

Leno said the Democrats are planning ballot measures for next year to raise revenue and repeal the two-thirds budget vote requirement, which only California, Rhode Island, and Arkansas have. As the state’s budget crisis devastates state services as well as those at county and city levels, Leno hopes this will be Norquist’s final stand.

"No one expects we can make $40 billion in cuts," said Leno, who hopes that the situation illustrates the intellectual bankruptcy of the right-wing stance.

"We do know there’s opportunity in crisis," Leno said. "It’s getting really ugly now and everybody knows it."

Republicans make one last stand to drown government

-

December 11, 2008

10

By Steven T. Jones

Democrats in the California Legislature say they’re ready to take the gloves off and start aggressively attacking the longstanding “no new taxes” pledge that their Republican colleagues signed with American for Tax Reform, which threatens to shut down the deficit-plagued state government.
“Every Republican has signed a pledge to someone who wants to drown government in a bathtub, Grover Norquist. So nothing will happen until we rip up those pledges,” Sen. Mark Leno told me, noting the devastating combination of that pledge and the two-thirds vote requirement to pass a budget in California, which only two other states have. That margin is just three Republicans in each the Assembly and Senate. “Six human beings are bringing us to our knees.”
“No matter how nice the Republican next to me is, or how gay friendly, they’re doctrinaire and they have everyone by the cojones,” Assembly member Tom Ammiano told me.
Senate Republican leader Dave Cogdill yesterday put out a statement saying, “Raising taxes doesn’t solve the underlying problem of California’s budget, which is the state spends more than it takes in.” I’m awaiting return calls from both Cogdill’s office and the ATR, but Cogdill’s statement is simply untrue on its face. Raising taxes does indeed address the problem of the state spending more than it takes in.

Stop PG&E’s corporate welfare

-

December 3, 2008

0

EDITORIAL Just in time for the holiday season — and the colder weather — Pacific Gas and Electric Co. wants to shift millions of dollars in fees off big industrial customers and force residential consumers to pay more for natural gas.

The move would set a terrible precedent, and San Francisco officials should join the consumer groups that are calling on the California Public Utilities Commission to reject the plan.

At issue is California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE), a state-mandated program that helps low-income consumers pay for basic gas service — enough to heat their homes and cook their food. CARE costs PG&E nothing; the entire subsidy system is paid for by modest surcharges on every utility bill in the state. But now the biggest gas users — giant corporations like Exxon Mobil and Chevron — want to stop paying the surcharge, and PG&E, along with San Diego Gas and Electric and Southern California Edison, is taking up their cause. The three giant utilities have asked the CPUC to reduce their subsidy contribution by $90 million. Residential customers would pick up the slack. Why? Jeff Smith, a PG&E spokesman, told Los Angeles Times columnist David Lazarus that "We’ve got to try to help make it more attractive for businesses to do business in California."

But Chevron and Exxon Mobil aren’t suffering from a hostile business climate in this state. Both have reported record profits in the past year. The CEO of Exxon Mobil, Rex Tillerson, was paid $16.7 million; Chevron’s CEO, David O’Reilly, made $15.74 million. The fee shift wouldn’t help small businesses much; it’s based on how much energy a customer uses, so the big energy-intensive industries pay the most.

The best way to boost the business climate in this recession era is to promote consumer spending — which means putting more money in the pockets of residents. Raising the gas bills of people who are already hurting will have the opposite effect.

"It’s an absolute outrage that the biggest companies would be given a discount on the backs of ratepayers," Mindy Spatt, media advocacy director at The Utility Reform Network (TURN), told us. "Everyone’s so worried about making the climate good for businesses, but what about the climate for people?"

A CPUC administrative law judge ruled against the utilities in November, but the case will go to the full commission, possibly as soon as Dec. 18. (Details are online at the Bruce Blog at sfbg.com.)

San Francisco has an interest in the outcome, since the city’s economy will take another hit if PG&E gets away with this. And, of course, it’s ironic that the utility would take this step just after it spent $10 million to defeat a local public-power measure (which would have lowered electric rates and helped both small and large businesses, as well as consumers).

The supervisors ought to pass a resolution opposing the plan and City Attorney Dennis Herrera should file a formal statement of opposition on behalf of the city.

In another front on another battleground, state assemblymember Tom Ammiano and state senator Mark Leno are introducing a joint resolution that would put the Legislature on record as supporting the legal challenge to the same-sex marriage ban, Proposition 8, and as raising concerns that the measure violates the equal protection and separation of powers safeguarded in the state constitution (see "Tyranny of the majority," 11/26/08).

Leno told us that the intent isn’t to put pressure on the California Supreme Court, which will begin considering the case in January, but to make clear the Legislature’s intent that substantial changes to the constitution such as this should go through the more cumbersome revision process.

Joining Leno and Ammiano in sponsoring the bill are Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and Assemblymember John Perez, and state senate president Darrell Steinberg and state senator Christine Kehoe. Leno said he expects others to sign on as well. It’s a solid idea, and the Legislature should approve it.

Decongest me

-

December 3, 2008

0

› sarah@sfbg.com

San Francisco could raise $35 million to $65 million for public transit improvements annually by charging drivers $3 to cross specific downtown zones during peak travel hours, according to a San Francisco County Transportation Authority congestion pricing study.

The aim of those fees, SFCTA staffers say, is to reduce congestion, making trips faster and more reliable, neighborhoods cleaner, and vehicle emissions lower, all while raising money to improve local and regional public transit and make the city more livable and walkable — improvements they hope will get even more folks out of their cars.

London, Rome, and Stockholm already have congestion pricing schemes, but plans to charge congestion fees in New York got shelved this July, reportedly in large part because of New Jersey officials’ fears that low-income suburban commuters would end up carrying a disproportionate burden of these fees.

As a result of New York’s unanticipated pressing of the pause button, San Francisco now stands poised to become the first city in the United States to introduce congestion pricing. But the plan requires approval from both local officials as well and the state legislature.

As SFCTA executive director Jose Luis Moscovich told the Guardian last week, "The state has control over passage of goods and people. Therefore, if we want to restrict that in any way, e.g. charging a congestion fee, [we] have to get the state’s permission."

If a congestion pricing plan is to go forward, it will need the support of Mayor Gavin Newsom. Wade Crowfoot, the mayor’s climate change advisor, told us, "It’s obvious that the mayor embraces the concept, as he laid out in his 2008 inaugural address."

But Newsom isn’t signing the dotted line just yet. "The mayor wants to make sure that there are no negative impacts that would make people not want to come to San Francisco, or would harm low-income people who live in areas that are not served by public transit and have no other choice but to drive," Crowfoot said.

"We are encouraging the [Transportation Authority] to do vigorous public outreach so that no one feels blindsided," Crowfoot added.

But as SFCTA executive director Jose Luis Moscovich explained Nov. 25 to the supervisors, who also constitute the transportation authority board, even if San Francisco gets the legislative green light, it could take two to three years to implement a congestion pricing plan.

"We’re not making a proposal," Moscovich said. "We’re just showing the initial results of our analysis."

That said, it’s clear Moscovich believes congestion pricing is feasible and would contribute to local, regional, and statewide transit goals.

TOO MANY PEOPLE

With San Francisco planning to accommodate 150,000 new residents and 230,000 new jobs over the next 25 years, Moscovich’s principal transportation planner, Zabe Bent, outlined four scenarios last week that would mitigate impacts in already congested areas.

These scenarios involve a small downtown cordon, a gateway fee with increased parking pricing downtown, a double ring that combines gateway crossings with additional fees downtown, and a cordon that imposes fees on crossings into the city’s northeast corner. (See www.sfmobility.org for details, including maps of the four possible zone scenarios.)

It seems likely the SFCTA will pursue the double ring or northeast cordon option.

As Bent told the board, "If the zone is too small, people will drive around it. And drivers within the zone could end up driving more, thereby eroding anticipated congestion benefits."

But all four scenarios aim to alleviate an additional 382,000 daily trips and 30 percent extra time lost to traffic congestion that would otherwise occur by 2030, according to SFCTA studies.

"We won’t reach environmental goals through clean technology alone," Bent explained. "Even if everyone converted to a Prius, the roads would still be congested."

Observing that it already costs at least $4 to get into the city by car — on top of $2 per gallon for gas and high parking fees — Bent argued that congestion, which cost the city $2 billion in 2005, reduces San Francisco’s competitiveness and quality of life.

Stockholm raised $50 million a year and reduced congestion by 22 percent with congestion fees, while London raised $200 million a year and reduced congestion by 30 percent.

In San Francisco, the SFCTA used computer models to determine that by charging $3 per trip at peak hours, the region would get maximum benefits and minimum impacts.

Discounts would be available for commercial fleets, rentals, car shares, and zone residents, Bent said, with toll payers getting a $1 "fee-bate" and taxis completely exempt.

As Moscovich noted, "Taxis are viewed as an extension of the public transit system."

BIG BUSINESS GRUMBLES

With concerted public outreach scheduled for the next two months, and business groups already grumbling about even talking about any increases to the cost of shopping and commuting with the economy in meltdown, Moscovich warned the supervisors not to wait until after the next economic boom hits, before planning to deal with congestion.

"Now is the right time to study it, but not implement it yet," Moscovich said.

Kathryn Phillips of the Sacramento-based Environmental Defense Fund told the Board that in Stockholm, public support grew to 67 percent once a congestion fee was in place.

"People saw that it reduced congestion, provided more public transit services, and made the city more livable and walkable," Phillips said.

BART director and Livable City executive director Tom Radulovich believes that free downtown transit would make the fees more palatable. "Fares could be collected when you get off the train if you travel outside of the zone," Radulovich said.

Noting that BART is approaching its limits, Muni Metro needs investments, and parking fees are an effective tool for managing congestion, Radulovich added. "Congestion pricing’s main criteria should not be to make traffic move faster. I don’t want to create more dangerous streets, but generally speaking, I think that plan is on the right track."

As for fears that San Francisco’s plans could tank at the state level because of concerns about working-class drivers being unfairly burdened, Radulovich noted that SFCTA studies at Doyle Drive determined that only 6 percent of peak hour drivers are low-income.

"The vast majority are earning more than $50,000 a year," Radulovich said. "And since the number of low-income drivers is very small, they could be given discounts. The real environmental justice issue here is what current congestion levels are doing to people living downtown, who are mostly low-income. They put up with inhumane levels of traffic and congestion, which affects the health and livability of their neighborhoods."

Dave Synder, transportation policy director for SPUR (San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association), said he believes the regressive tax argument is a misleading attack.

"The truth is, that without the revenues this program will bring, the MTA will have to cut service for poor people, not increase service to meet increased demand for people who can no longer afford to drive," Synder told us.

But several local business groups are claiming that San Francisco doesn’t have a congestion problem compared to European cities.

Ken Cleveland of San Francisco’s Building Owners and Managers Association, said he believes that reports of congestion in San Francisco "are more hype than reality.

"We have no problem compared to London, Rome, and Stockholm," Cleveland said. "Congestion fees may work when you have a huge city with millions of people crammed in, like in London, Manhattan, Rome, but not in San Francisco."

Cleveland urged a hard look at what this increase means for people who drive now. " Fees of $160 a month would be "a real hit" on the middle and working classes, he said.

Jim Lazarus of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce said he opposed a local cordon, but supports a regional congestion pricing program. "Look out the window at 10.45 a.m., and you’ll see that there is no congestion on Montgomery and Pine," Lazarus told us, noting that unlike London, which covers 600 square miles, San Francisco only has a 49-square-mile footprint.

"If you decide not to go into downtown London, the odds are your taxes, jobs, and revenues will still go into London’s coffers," he said. "That’s not the case in San Francisco. So from a small business point of view, it doesn’t make sense."

Bent says the SFCTA’s study provides numbers that are irrefutable, in terms of showing how travel times are impacted by congestion, during peak hours. "We’re talking about modest improvements in speed, but significant improvements in travel time," Bent said.

The proposed fees won’t affect shoppers, museum-goers, or those going out at night, but would benefit all users of the public transit system, Moscovich said.

"We’re not designing for London, we’re designing for San Francisco," Moscovich told the Guardian. "And this is not an anti-automobile program. This is an effort to achieve a balanced transportation system."

With the congestion fee revenue reinvested in transportation infrastructure, Moscovich adds, public transit will be less crowded, and provide more frequent, faster service.

"It all makes perfect internal sense: folks with the least resources are likely to benefit the most," said Moscovich, who predicts that San Francisco will agree on some form of congestion pricing.

"The mayor wants to be seen as a leader in initiating climate change commitment, and transportation is one of the first ways to achieve this," he said. "Especially since 50 percent of San Francisco’s greenhouse emissions occur during peak hour travel."

"We’re trying to change behavior, not just engineering. We don’t want people in cars. … For every pollution-free Prius, you have diesel buses and older cars sitting in traffic idling, essentially eroding any benefits. The best way to optimize results is to get some cars out of the peak hour."

Sup. Jake McGoldrick, who is president of the SFCTA board and has supported the congestion fee-pricing system since it was implemented in London, said that "business will have to step up [and] make a willing suspension of disbelief to see that enhanced mobility will enhance business opportunities.

"There will be no need to get mauled at the mall," McGoldrick predicts. "San Francisco has wonderful things to offer, not just a sterile, homogenous, single-purpose environment. You can’t match museums and cultural amenities out at the malls. San Francisco is a cultural center, not just a strip mall."

McGoldrick, who is termed out in January, said that the new Board "will lean very positively toward doing this." He added that state representatives, including Sens. Leland Yee and Mark Leno and Assembly Members Fiona Ma and Tom Ammiano "will see the benefits.

"They should be willing to carry the banner because of the long term benefits for their grandchildren," McGoldrick said.

(The Board will consider the congestion pricing scenarios and impacts Dec. 16. See www.sfmobility.org for details of public workshops and meetings.)

Clean energy

-

November 25, 2008

0

EDITORIAL Pacific Gas and Electric Co., its political hacks, and to a great extent, the San Francisco Chronicle all seem to take the same line on the defeat of Proposition H: It’s done. The people have spoken. Public power has been on the ballot 11 times, and it’s never passed.

And — as is always the case with a losing campaign — supporters of the Clean Energy Act are discussing what went wrong, looking at how the measure was written, the details, the language, the scope to see if there was something that could have been done differently.

But that ignores the central reality of the campaign for Prop. H: PG&E spent nearly $10.3 million to kill it. And it’s very, very hard to fight that kind of money.

The truth is, there was nothing wrong with the language or scope of Prop. H. If it had passed, it would have given the city the tools to create a sustainable energy portfolio that would be the envy of the nation. In fact, there is little doubt that the Clean Energy Act was well ahead in the polls when it was first placed on the ballot.

But as we’ve seen with so many races over time (and as we saw with Proposition 8 this fall) when a ballot measure it becomes a citywide or statewide race, big money has a serious impact. And we’ve never seen this kind of money in a San Francisco initiative campaign. In the end, PG&E spent about $53 per vote. That’s an outrageous sum, dwarfing any political spending that’s ever happened in San Francisco

Yet despite the barrage, the Clean Energy Act got tremendous grassroots and political support. Clean Energy has a strong constituency in San Francisco, including from the Sierra Club, and the power of this campaign won’t go away. Despite the efforts of downtown and PG&E, progressives still control the Board of Supervisors. Three of the city’s four representatives in Sacramento — Senator-elect Mark Leno, Assembly Member Fiona Ma and Assembly Member-elect Tom Ammiano — supported the legislation and will continue to back efforts to replace PG&E’s dirty power with locally- owned renewable energy. PG&E has money but it’s running out of friends in this town — and its illegal monopoly is the very definition of unsustainable.

There’s now an organized constituency for clean energy and public power, seasoned by this campaign and ready to continue the battle. That’s what needs to happen. There are numerous fronts: the city needs to be moving forward quickly with community choice aggregation, which offers the potential for cheaper, cleaner power. (The downside to CCA is that it doesn’t allow the city to make money; PG&E would still own the transmission lines, and thus make all the profits in the system.) Potentially, however, a CCA agency could begin moving toward creating local generation facilities and eventually toward building a local transmission system. A CCA also could directly access the city’s own Hetch Hetchy power and begin delivering it to local customers (once San Francisco can get out of the contracts requiring it to send too much of that power out of town).

The supervisors need a strong Local Agency Formation Commission to keep monitoring and pushing this, and the new board president needs to be sure LAFCO members are committed to and energized about renewable energy and public power.

Several supervisors — Sean Elsbernd, for example — told us they saw no reason for Prop. H to be on the ballot since so much of what it called for could be done by the board. Fine: Sup. Ross Mirkarimi, one of the authors of Prop. H, should immediately introduce legislation to do everything in Prop. H that doesn’t require a city charter change. Let’s see if Elsbernd and the mayor are really just PG&E call-up votes or if they’re willing to support an energy options feasibility study and strong renewable-energy mandates for the city.

And there are still legal options that the board should look at. City Attorney Dennis Herrera never wanted to go to court to enforce the Raker Act, the federal law requiring San Francisco to operate a public power system, but that’s an area the board can push. David Campos, the apparent supervisor-elect in District 9, is a lawyer who has worked in the city attorney’s office and sued PG&E, so this is an area where he can show leadership.

The bottom line is that this battle isn’t over.

There were other disappointments on what was generally a progressive ballot. Proposition V — the phony measure calling on the school board to reinstate JROTC — passed, narrowly. It was mostly a wedge issue to hurt progressive candidates for supervisor, and has been a horribly divisive issue in the schools. The school board, which cut off JROTC last year, is now pushing for an excellent public service alternative and doesn’t need to go back and reexamine the issue. JROTC is a terrible idea for San Francisco, and the newly elected board members shouldn’t even bring this up again.

Of course we were deeply unhappy about the passage of Prop. 8. The repeal of same-sex marriage was such a blow to San Francisco that it dampened a lot of the enthusiasm over the Obama victory. But that one’s not over, either; it has just begun. Statistics show that voters under 30 overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage — and if the campaign is run differently, and the message is positive, it’s likely that Prop. 8 can be overturned. Marriage equality advocates should think seriously about preparing now for a major campaign in November 2010 to restore equal rights for same-sex couples in California.

Clean energy: the next moves

-

November 11, 2008