By Steven T. Jones
Contrary to the demented hopes of conservative ideologues like the Examiner’s Ken Garcia, there is no joy on the left over the sordid sex scandal that has now engulfed Mayor Gavin Newsom. Sure, it opens up this year’s mayor’s race and illustrates some of the character flaws of Newsom’s administration, which have manifested themselves in how he conducts himself professionally, not just personally. But nobody’s happy to see this, not the Guardian (which has also heard these rumors for the last six months but couldn’t confirm the story enough to print it) nor the politicians and activists on the left. Several of them happened to be gathered last night when the news hit, and I can tell you there was no glee in that room. Sup. Chris Daly’s public comments have been respectful and reserved and in private, he genuinely felt bad for Alex Tourk. Everybody did. Matt Gonzalez, who has been rumored to be considering a run for mayor, spent more time considering how this incident places City Hall in a bad light and in legal jeopardy than he did calculating his own prospects. And my sweetie Alix Rosenthal, who is president of the National Women’s Political Caucus, and the other women in the room are bracing for attempts to inappropriately delve into Ruby Tourk’s private life and are ready to fight back if Newsom’s people or their proxies go that route.
In the coming days or weeks, after the shock of this wears off and it becomes acceptable to make jokes or calculate its political implications, we’ll rejoin the battle for this city’s soul and actively try to help point the way forward from here. But today, we’re all just shaking our heads.
Mayor
No joy
Ragone comes clean? Not yet.
By Steven T. Jones
According to KCBS radio, mayoral flack Peter Ragone has finally admitted to both posting on SFist and other blogs under a false name and lying to reporters about the existence of his imaginary friend, John Nelson. Newsom, who just returned from 10 days in Switzerland, reportedly expressed his displeasure with Ragone, but downplayed the incident.
Apparently, both men think that’s the end of this, but it isn’t. I had an appointment with Ragone scheduled for 4 p.m. today, but he has pushed that back to tomorrow. I’ll be curious what he has to say, and what “lessons” he’s learned, as he obliquely told the Chron. He directly lied to me and other journalists, a lie that KGO-TV broadcast the other night. Ragone needs to issue a public apology, he needs to directly apologize to me and others, then he needs to explain how the incident and other recent offenses have changed him and what he intends to do to restore his damaged credibility. Until he does that, none of us should believe anything that we hear from the Mayor’s Office.
Skateparks revisited; someone tell the mayor it’s not a ‘backslide’ 180
By G.W. Schulz
Got a call this morning from Rich Hillis, a deputy in the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development. He was responding to a blog entry we posted last night pointing out that the city has made lots of promises in recent years about constructing new skateparks within the city, an inexpensive gesture any city can make for providing kids with something to do. (Our original post contains plenty of links explaining where skatepark construction is in San Francisco right now.)
Where’s the beef on LGBT issues?
OPINION Common wisdom says that Mayor Gavin Newsom has forever endeared himself to the LGBT community by issuing marriage licenses to queer couples shortly after coming into office in 2004. Even though a state court later declared those licenses invalid (the city is appealing), Newsom’s popularity among queers doesn’t appear to have diminished. This is despite the fact that the Newsom administration has actually done little in terms of some of the major issues facing the community.
Let’s take a look at a few of those issues:
• Housing for people with AIDS. A couple months after the "winter of love" at City Hall, Newsom appointed Jeff Sheehy as AIDS czar. An AIDS activist and former hate-crime-victim advocate in the District Attorney’s Office, Sheehy was supposed to help the mayor formulate AIDS policies. But it was a volunteer position, and the major concern of people with AIDS — affordable housing — was never addressed. Two years later Sheehy resigned the post. Meanwhile, the city’s affordable housing crisis still leaves many low-income people with AIDS desperately scrambling for a place to live after they are evicted by real estate speculators looking for a quick buck in the tenancy-in-common market. The situation is so bad that the AIDS Housing Alliance dubbed the Castro "the AIDS eviction capital of the world."
• Liaison to the LGBT community. Apparently, former mayor Joe Alioto initiated this position in 1973. Newsom’s appointment was not a community activist but someone who worked in advertising. Founder of Gays for Gavin in the 2003 mayoral election campaign, James "Jimmer" Cassiol served for almost two years before he too resigned. His major duty seemed to be representing the mayor at LGBT functions.
• Homelessness among queer youth. While Newsom is quick to tout his Care Not Cash and Operation Homeless Connect programs as solutions to one of the city’s most enduring and heartbreaking problems, he failed to mention youth in general and queer youth in particular in his recent state of homelessness address. To date, only a handful of queer youth have received city-sponsored housing — in a hotel on Market Street, which Castro supervisor Bevan Dufty secured. More hotel rooms are supposedly on the way.
• Affordable housing for seniors. A proposed Market-Octavia Openhouse project for queer seniors won’t actually provide housing for those who need it the most: people with incomes below 50 percent of the area median income. The Newsom administration has done little to alleviate the lack of affordable housing for seniors, especially queer ones.
As the old woman in the ’70s commercials used to ask, where’s the beef? When it comes to queer issues, there is none. There’s certainly a lot of talk, many public appearances by the mayor and his representatives at queer functions, and the general promotion by Newsom and his staff of the idea that in San Francisco the LGBT community matters.
But if you’re poor, a senior, or homeless, it’s a different story altogether. *
Tommi Avicolli Mecca
Tommi Avicolli Mecca is a radical, southern Italian, working-class queer performer, writer, and activist whose work can be seen at www.avicollimecca.com.
Advancing public power
EDITORIAL A few months ago Pacific Gas and Electric Co. spent more than $10 million trying to keep the public Sacramento Municipal Utility District from annexing a part of Yolo County, which would have cost PG&E 77,000 customers. It was a stunning amount of campaign cash — and as is often the case, it worked: PG&E narrowly won the day, public power suffered a setback, and the people who wanted to get out from the private utility’s high rates and save big money by buying electricity from a public power agency had their hope shot down.
We’re used to this in San Francisco, where PG&E money and power have carried the day for more than 80 years and prevented the city from complying with the Raker Act, the federal law that requires public power. But the outcome of the Yolo County battle is a reminder of how high the stakes are for the beleaguered private utility — and how creative public power advocates are going to have to be in PG&E’s hometown.
It’s likely that there will be another ballot measure in the next year or two to authorize the city to sell bonds and take over PG&E’s local distribution system. The evidence is clear: public power is cheaper, public power is more environmentally sound (remember — for all its green hype, PG&E still runs a nuclear power plant), and public power is San Francisco’s legal mandate. Just about everyone in City Hall claims to be a public power supporter these days.
But in the meantime, the supervisors need to start looking at immediate alternatives that don’t involve an expensive ballot battle. There may well be ways to bring public power to San Francisco without having to confront a $10 million (or $20 million or $30 million) PG&E political blitzkrieg.
The most obvious approach is to continue the small steps the city is currently taking and leverage them into a much bigger program. There is, of course, community choice aggregation, which should continue to move forward. Beyond that, San Francisco just won the right to provide electricity at the Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project; the city is trying to do the same for Treasure Island. Why not start with the shipyard and build a public power system outward, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood?
PG&E has no legal right to be the exclusive provider of retail power in the city. There’s no legal reason why San Francisco can’t start running wires out of the shipyard — underground, safely, with modern equipment — buy up a bunch of meters, and start offering the residents of Bayview–Hunters Point cheap electricity. The revenue from the first, say, 50-square-block project could fund the next one. The seed money could come as a loan from the General Fund.
The first thing the city’s Public Utilities Commission needs to do is conduct a study of the cost of implementing public power on a small scale in one part of town — and the likely revenue it would bring in. A larger study should look at how the city could build its own distribution system (with state-of-the-art equipment) one step at a time over, say, five or 10 years.
At the same time, of course, while the city is running electric wires, it can run fiber-optic and (if necessary) coaxial lines, with the goal of creating a city-run broadband and cable TV service.
The ideal place to start discussing this is the Local Agency Formation Commission, which should hold hearings as soon as possible, prod the SFPUC to move — and fund the study if nobody else will.
In the meantime, the City Attorney’s Office should look into another (admittedly slightly unconventional) idea: could the Redevelopment Agency, which already has the authority to issue bonds, simply seize all of PG&E’s wires, poles, and meters for a public power system?
We don’t trust the Redevelopment Agency, and it’s risky to even raise this idea. But there’s a larger issue here: in many cities and counties the council or board of supervisors runs the Redevelopment Agency. We’ve long thought that the district-elected board would be more accountable and better suited to handle the immense (and dangerous) power of this agency than a commission appointed by the mayor.
Think about it: The supervisors take over redevelopment. Redevelopment buys out PG&E’s system. A new city agency, under the supervisors, starts selling retail power at cheap rates citywide and builds new solar, wind, and tidal facilities to make San Francisco a true national model of environmentally sound energy policy.
If it’s legal — and the city attorney needs to issue an opinion on that — all it would take is political will. *
Peter’s principles (or lack thereof)
By Steven T. Jones
Before hitting the latest news of ethics problems in the mayor’s office, and the brilliant segment that KGO-TV’s dogged investigative reporter Dan Noyes has done to highlight them, it’s important to offer some context and perspective.
Mayor Gavin Newsom imported veteran Democrat Party flack Peter Ragone to be his press secretary upon taking office three years ago. Ragone didn’t really know San Francisco that well, but he seemed to understand the national political landscape and therefore became a trusted adviser to our ambitious mayor. The gay marriage move was brilliant, shoring up Newsom’s support in the city’s queer community and positioning him as a civil rights leader for future campaigns.
Yet along the way, Ragone seemed to forget that Newsom was the mayor of San Francisco at a time when progressives controlled the Board of Supervisors and couldn’t simply be dismissed. Over and over, Ragone spun stories to reporters about the incompetence and/or malevolence of progressives or other critics of the mayor — often attacking or belittling the journalists when they expressed skepticism — until he had very little credibility left with any of us (something I say as someone who regularly talks with journalists from all the other major news outlets in town).
So when the SFist discovered that some posters to their site were actually coming from Ragone’s computer, and Ragone avoided answering questions about it and opted to instead claim on the site that allegedly pseudonymous John Nelson was a real person, his best friend actually, who often stayed at Ragone’s house during the early morning and late night hours when he posted — most people simply assumed Ragone was lying.
I wanted to give Ragone the benefit of the doubt and asked whether I could meet John or otherwise get some verification for his existence. Ragone said no, and said, “I don’t think I’d like to see my friends and family put through the wringer of San Francisco politics.”
Unkinking the Armory
by Amanda Witherell
Looks like you can’t just set up a porno film studio in San Francisco anymore. Neighborhood groups are looking to have more say in how kinky the Armory building at 14th and Mission is going to be now that it’s been purchased by kink.com for filming fetish flicks. So the Mayor’s office and the city’s planning department are scheduling some meetings to hash it all over in fine San Francisco style. It sounds like they sort of wish it became pricey penthouses after all and the mayor’s disgraced flak, Peter Ragone has turned on the spin, lamenting the loss of an opportunity to fill the building with affordable housing. No word yet on when those meetings will be, but we’ll be sure to let you know.
Fiber: A big fat pipe all the way into the home
By Sarah Phelan
If you’ve read the 196-page study of fiber-to-the-premise that landed in the City the same week that Mayor Gavin Newsom was whooping it up in Davos, Switzerland, you’ll know that the report concludes that municipal fiber-to-the-premises is the most visionary way for San Francisco to go, and that the city should build a pilot network in the San Francisco Enterprise Zone, which is a 12-square mile economic development area that includes Bay View, Hunter’s Point, South Bayshore, Chinatown, Mission District, Mission Bay, Potrero Hill, South of Market, Tenderloin and the Western Addition.
“FTTP is the holy grail of broadband, a fat pipe all the way into the home or business,” states the executive summary, “but in the near future is only available for a privileged few located in the limited areas of private-sector deployment.”
Noting that private sector networks aren’t meeting this growing demand for bandwidth and speed in an affordable manner, the report states that “in this context of private sector disinterest, municipal FTTP would rank San Francisco among the world’s most far-sighted cities—by creating an infrastructure asset with a lifetime of decades that is almost endlessly upgradeable and capable of supporting any number of public or private sector communications initiatives.”
According to the report, fiber allows “numerous competitors to quickly and inexpensively enter the San Francisco market and offer competing, differentiated broadband services and access,” facilitates “democratic and free market values,” “affordable access” “economic development” and enhances, “the City’s reputation for visionary and pioneering projects; promoting major development initiatives such as revitalization zones.”
The report also notes that fiber “provides a highly reliable, resilient backbone for existing and future wireless initiatives,” supports current and future public safety and government communications systems, saving the City enormous unending cost of leasing circuits from telephone companies, and provides a higher quality, higher capacity, more reliable, more secure transport for key city users such as law enforcement, fire, emergency management and public health.”
In other words, it’s the kind of system that would be a life saver following a major earthquake.
None of which means that we shouldn’t be doing wireless, just not the
flawed Google Earthlink deal that Mayor Gavin Newsom is pushing.
Fiber: A big fat pipe all the way into your home
By Sarah Phelan
If you’ve read the 196-page study of fiber-to-the-premise that was posted online by he City’s Department of Telecommunications and InformationServices the same week that Mayor Gavin Newsom was whooping it up in Davos, Switzerland, you’ll know that the report concludes that municipal fiber-to-the-premises is the most visionary way for San Francisco to go. Oh, and that to really bridge the digital divide, he city should build a pilot fiber network in the San Francisco Enterprise Zone–a 12-square mile economic development area that includes Bay View, Hunter’s Point, South Bayshore, Chinatown, Mission District, Mission Bay, Potrero Hill, South of Market, Tenderloin and the Western Addition.
“FTTP is the holy grail of broadband, a fat pipe all the way into the home or business,” states the executive summary, “but in the near future is only available for a privileged few located in the limited areas of private-sector deployment.”
Noting that private sector networks aren’t meeting this growing demand for bandwidth and speed in an affordable manner, the report states that “in this context of private sector disinterest, municipal FTTP would rank San Francisco among the world’s most far-sighted cities—by creating an infrastructure asset with a lifetime of decades that is almost endlessly upgradeable and capable of supporting any number of public or private sector communications initiatives.”
According to the report, fiber allows “numerous competitors to quickly and inexpensively enter the San Francisco market and offer competing, differentiated broadband services and access,” facilitates “democratic and free market values,” “affordable access” “economic development” and enhances, “the City’s reputation for visionary and pioneering projects; promoting major development initiatives such as revitalization zones.”
The report also notes that fiber “provides a highly reliable, resilient backbone for existing and future wireless initiatives,” supports current and future public safety and government communications systems, saving the City enormous unending cost of leasing circuits from telephone companies, and provides a higher quality, higher capacity, more reliable, more secure transport for key city users such as law enforcement, fire, emergency management and public health.”
In other words, it’s the kind of system that would be a life saver following a major earthquake.
None of which means that we shouldn’t be doing wireless, just not the
flawed Google Earthlink deal that Mayor Gavin Newsom is pushing.
Virtual Newsom
By Steven T. Jones
Mayor Gavin Newsom may be unwilling to appear in person before the Board of Supervisors, but he’s using his trip to the World Economic Forum to reach out to citizens of the virtual world Second Life. The cyber-Gavin gave a long but not terribly illuminating interview, although he did joke that we now have a virtual mayor “just in case the public gets fed up with the real me.” I listened for some of the “new ideas” he claimed he would bring back from the Swiss Alps, but instead it sounded like he developed some new sympathies for poor, misunderstood corporate titans, such as the oil executive who wants to save the world for his children. How touching.
Will the real Peter Ragone please stand up?
By Steven T. Jones
The scrappy political blog SFist has consistently, insightfully, and with an infectious sense of voyeuristic glee been dogging Mayor Gavin Newsom and his many missteps of the last year, becoming a go-to site for local political junkies. As such, Newsom’s prickly press secretary Peter Ragone and a few other Gavin supporters have taken to posting comments defending their guy.
Well, now it seems the SFist has caught Ragone apparently pretending to be a John Nelson, posting comments slamming SFist and slobbering all over Newsom. Like the SFist, I called Ragone’s numbers trying to get a comment and/or confirmation, but was unsuccessful.
What the hell is going on in the mayor’s office? Has their bunker mentality completely overwhelmed their sense of ethics, accountability to the public, and service to the city? Personally, I’m going to redouble my efforts to dog the mayor and put some hard questions to him — as soon as he gets back from skiing in Switzerland with his girlfriend.
Sean is Queen ‘til February
by Sarah Phelan
Today was the first official Question Time at City Hall and, since Mayor Gavin Newsom was not in town, being tied up, among other things, at economic forums in Switzerland, Board Chair Aaron Peskin asked Sup. Sean Elsbernd, who Newsom has appointed as Acting Mayor in his absence. if he wanted to address the policy questions, instead.
“I’m not sure how hard I should laugh right now,” sputtered Elsbernd. “If we took this logically, I could stand up here and have a conversation with myself.”
“Most substitute mayors don’t exercise the full mayoral powers,” interjected Sup. Chris Daly. “Though there are some notable exceptions,” he added. Daly was of course referring to his own October 2003 surprise, in which he
Sean is Queen ‘til February
by Sarah Phelan
Today was the first official Question Time at City Hall and, since Mayor Gavin Newsom was not in town, being tied up, among other things, at economic forums in Switzerland, Board Chair Aaron Peskin asked Sup. Sean Elsbernd, who Newsom has appointed as Acting Mayor in his absence. if he wanted to address the policy questions, instead.
“I’m not sure how hard I should laugh right now,” sputtered Elsbernd. “If we took this logically, I could stand up here and have a conversation with myself.”
“Most substitute mayors don’t exercise the full mayoral powers,” interjected Sup. Chris Daly. “Though there are some notable exceptions,” he added. Daly was of course referring to his own October 2003 surprise, in which he
Newsom loves the poor. Huh.
By Tim Redmond
I’m a little late on this; somehow, I missed it when it came out. But Leftinsf picked it right up: Mayor Newsom is against municipal Wi-Fi because he doesn’t want to hurt the poor:
“I’m not going to take $10 million from poor people to pay for something that a private company has offered to pay for,” [Newsom said], suggesting money for a system owned or part-owned by city government would take money from social programs.
Three things, Mr. Mayor (if you are bothering to read this from Davos, Switzerland, where all those needy poor people hang out):
1. Broadband infrastructure is a public-works project, like streets and sewers. It’s the sort of thing that governments spend tax dollars on.
2. Why do we have to take money from the poor? Are you utterly opposed to taxing the rich?
3. You’ve managed to put money into all sorts of other projects in the city. Sasha at leftinsf nicely notes that the mayor was prepared to put a 50 cent tax on everyone’s monthly phone bill to pay for his 311system. Sasha explains::
Now here’s the thing: Did he send out an RFP for the 311 system asking companies to do it for free? I’m sure that if every 311 call could have a 15 second ad at the beginning he could have gotten some company to pay for it!
If Newsom had proposed to make some private company responsible for the system that is supposed to be the one stop shop for San Franciscans looking for city information, with no standards for service, no guarantee that it would always be available, and allowing people willing to pay extra priority access to the number, San Franciscans would rightly react very badly. Instead, we are paying for it ourselves, because the quality of that information and the idea that everyone should have equal access to our government is a core San Francisco value.
Ayup.
Another Team Newsom screw-up
By Tim Redmond
Does Newsom’s press secretary, Peter Ragone, really think it’s helpful to launch personal insults at members of the Board of Supervisors? Or has this whole Yalie thing gotten so out of hand that he’s lost his mind?
Check this out from the LA Times:
Some supervisors have suggested that Newsom should spend more time trying to lower the city’s high unsolved-murder rate than talking about a high-profile assault case.
“His outrage needs to be re-proportioned toward the most severe crimes and less to those that affect his own political image outside San Francisco,” said Supervisor Ross Mirkirimi, who represents a high-crime district.
Responded Ragone: “Ross Mirkirimi can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. What he doesn’t understand is that the mayor of a major American city has to be able to focus on more than one thing at once.”
Newsom’s political team shits the bed
By Tim Redmond
Gavin Newsom has always had sharp, well-paid political advisors, starting with consultant Eric Jaye. His public-relations operation has been well-honed, his every move designed to keep those popularity ratings soaring and keep him on the fast track to higher office.
But the wheels are starting to fall off this train.
There was, for example, the drinking issue, and his fight with Dan Noyes. That was just stupid: Newsom should have just laughed off the whole thing. Most San Francisco politicians drink; I would, too, if I were the mayor. (Well, I’m not the mayor, and I still drink.) Willie Brown, Newsom’s predecessor, as known to enjoy an occasional glass of wine, even with lunch, and lord knows — lord knows — what kind of partying he was doing in the evenings. But he didn’t care what people said about it; hey, whatever. This is a guy who impregnated his chief fundraiser and shrugged it off so quickly that it never became a political issue.
You get defensive about this stuff and it looks like you have a problem. That’s where Newsom is right now.
Then there’s the whole “question time” issue, which has become even more of a political embarassment.
I don’t know which political genius on the mayor’s staff told him it would be best ot ignore a vote of the public and refuse to comply with Proposition I. And I don’t know if that same genius told him to hold a “town hall meeting” instead. But it wasn’t a banner day for Team Newsom; in fact, the whole affair was a political disaster.
Steve Jones had fun with it. The SF Party Party had fun with it. Even the Chronicle story made Newsom look like a fool.
Randy Shaw thinks Newsom is acting on his own: “No political consultant would advise a Mayor to get on the wrong side of the popular foot patrol and question time issues, or to start battling with the media when facing re-election.”
But I’m not so sure. Newsom doesn’t do much of anything without political advice. I think he is, indeed, losing it — but so is his hot-shot political team.
Town snooze
By Steven T. Jones
Listen to a wav file of the Mayor’s January 13 “town hall meeting” here.
Newsom, with another new chick
I didn’t have high expectations of Mayor Gavin Newsom’s “town hall meeting” in the Richmond this morning — and I was still disappointed. What he had billed as an alternative to monthly policy discussions with the Board of Supervisors during its regular meeting in City Hall — which voters had asked by approving Proposition I in November — was instead ridiculous political theater on his signature issue: homelessness. As we said he would in our cover story, “Mayor Chicken,” Newsom brought along a cadre a city employees and political appointees who work on the issue and they all hit their cues and sang the mayor’s praises while he did his Phil Donahue shtick.
The first hour passed without taking any questions, which the audience had to submit in writing on cards. During the second hour, Newsom sorted through the stack of hundreds for the questions he liked and then asked them in his own words of his employees and panelists. After two hours, they had discussed homelessness from every possible angle and covered every detail — and the audience was bored to tears. It was deadly dull, except for how frustrating it was. He refused to answer any questions on other topics, and while I chided him on his way out for failing to chose anything but softball questions, he had the gall to criticize the Board of Supervisors for failing to come, an angle that his press secretary Peter Ragone has also been flogging for weeks, convincing absolutely nobody.
The only bright spot in the event were the five people dressed in chicken suits who showed up, who Newsom’s board liasion Wade Crowfoot tried to prevent from entering the public building unless they removed them, which they refused to do. It was a good thing they did because the only saving grace of this whole fiasco was watching Newsom get handed a written question (that he never answered) and pretend not to notice the guy was in a chicken suit. The chickens remained respectful through the whole event (not clucking or heckling), but would pop up in windows occasionally or just walk around. Hilarious!
Peek-a-boodle-doo
If you think I’m overstating what a joke this forum was — or if you want to hear Newsom and others (like Angela Alioto, who disgraced herself by sucking up to the mayor) blather on …. click the link at the top of this blog entry. Some buried treasures in the depths of this recording are my heated discussion with Ragone about halfway through and the tough question that I asked (I’m the somebody referred to in Beyond Chron) of those frustrated by the event: Is this a filibuster or an infomercial?
Pics courtesy of Luke Thomas, Fog City Journal
Newsom’s infomercial
By Steven T. Jones
Listen to a wav file of the Mayor’s January 13 Town Hall meeting here.
Newsom, with another new chick
I didn’t have high expectations of Mayor Gavin Newsom’s “town hall meeting” in the Richmond this morning — and I was still disappointed. What he had billed as an alternative to monthly policy discussions with the Board of Supervisors during its regular meeting in City Hall — which voters had asked by approving Proposition I in November — was instead ridiculous political theater on his signature issue: homelessness. As we said he would in our cover story, “Mayor Chicken,” Newsom brought along a cadre a city employees and political appointees who work on the issue and they all hit their cues and sang the mayor’s praises while he did his Phil Donahue shtick.
The first hour passed without taking any questions, which the audience had to submit in writing on cards. During the second hour, Newsom sorted through the stack of hundreds for the questions he liked and then asked them in his own words of his employees and panelists. After two hours, they had discussed homelessness from every possible angle and covered every detail — and the audience was bored to tears. It was deadly dull, except for how frustrating it was. He refused to answer any questions on other topics, and while I chided him on his way out for failing to chose anything but softball questions, he had the gall to criticize the Board of Supervisors for failing to come, an angle that his press secretary Peter Ragone has also been flogging for weeks, convincing absolutely nobody.
The only bright spot in the event were the six people dressed in chicken suits who showed up, who Newsom’s board liasion Wade Crowfoot tried to prevent from entering the public building unless they removed them, which they refused to do. It was a good thing they did because the only saving grace of this whole fiasco was watching Newsom get handed a written question (that he never answered) and pretend not to notice the guy was in a chicken suit. The chickens remained respectful through the whole event (not clucking or heckling), but would pop up in windows occasionally or just walk around. Hilarious!
Peek-a-boodle-doo
If you think I’m overstating what a joke this forum was — or if you want to hear Newsom and others (like Angela Alioto, who disgraced herself by sucking up to the mayor) blather on …. click the link at the top of this blog entry. Some buried treasures in the depths of this recording are my heated discussion with Ragone about halfway through and the tough question that I asked (I’m the somebody referred to in Beyond Chron) of those frustrated by the event: Is this a filibuster or an infomercial?
Pics courtesy of Luke Thomas, Fog City Journal
Mr. Sensitive
By Steven T. Jones
How brittle will Mayor Gavin Newsom be at his town hall meeting tomorrow, when he’s expected to be confronted about ducking real political debate? If this interview that aired on KGO-TV last night is any indication then watch for him to flee under fire again. Are we watching a full-blown meltdown of a big city mayor?
Stacking an already stacked deck?
By Steven T. Jones
We’re getting several calls — but no callbacks from the Mayor’s Office yet — from people interested in attending Mayor Gavin Newsom’s townhall meeting this Saturday who are being told by the mayor’s Communications Office that the event is RSVP only. That’s a surprise to us, those who have followed the issue of how Newsom is refusing Prop. I’s request that he appear for a dialogue with the Board of Supervisors once a month, and those who read our cover story on the issue this week. To make matters worse, the mayor’s people reportedly sent an e-mail to his supporters urging them to RSVP and attend the event, thus ensuring a supportive audience. As I said, I haven’t confirmed this yet because the mayor’s people haven’t returned my calls and e-mails for three days. So much for wanting to make himself more accessible to the public, as Newsom argued the town hall would done when you opted to substitute that for real political dialogue in City Hall. I plan to be there on Saturday anyway. How about you?
P.S. I just got the e-mail that Newsom sent out to his friendlies. It seems the fix is in:
Subject: Re: invite to Sat Public Hearing
Subject:
Join Mayor Gavin Newsom for the first Policy Townhall – space is limited…
Dear Community Members,
Please join Mayor Gavin Newsom & members of the City’s elected family
at the first monthly Policy Townhall for a community discussion on homelessness
This is an opportunity to learn about the City’s efforts to end chronic homelessness and a
chance to lend your voice – and share your ideas – to help solve this problem.
Saturday, January 13, 2007 at 10:00 a.m.
Richmond Recreation Center 251 18th Avenue (between California & Clement)
San Francisco, California 94121
Space is limited so please RSVP to 415 554 6110 or send an email to mons@sfgov.org
Some questions for the mayor
EDITORIAL Gavin Newsom doesn’t want to take direct questions from the supervisors. He rarely gets asked tough questions from the press and almost never from the public. Instead, as Steven T. Jones and Sarah Phelan report ("Mayor Chicken," page 13), all of his appearances are scripted, and he does a mighty job of ducking the hard questions.
But if he is indeed going to be holding a series of town hall meetings over the next few months, there’s a chance for the voters to pin him down. Here are a few things you might want to ask the mayor:
• Your own staff admits that the universal health care plan works only if employers are required to provide health benefits. Yet the Golden Gate Restaurant Association — your political ally — has sued to block this. Do you support the employer mandate? Will you call on the GGRA to drop the suit? Will you decline political contributions from the members of a group that is suing the city with the aim of destroying one of your key initiatives? Where will money come from if the suit succeeds?
• When you ignored the will of the voters and decided to hold these town hall meetings instead of appearing before the supervisors, you said the supes were invited to attend. But you knew it would be illegal for them to participate under the Brown Act without some expensive preparations. Why did you do that?
• Why isn’t your full appointments calendar posted on the Web? The only information the public gets is a listing of your public events. Where is the rest of the calendar?
• You say you support public power, but the city’s efforts are so far limited to Treasure Island and Hunters Point. If there were a ballot measure this fall calling for the city to buy out Pacific Gas and Electric Co.’s system and set up a full-scale public power effort — similar to Sup. Tom Ammiano’s measure in 2000 — would you pledge to endorse it?
• The city’s general plan states that 64 percent of all new housing should be available for below-market rates. Sup. Sophie Maxwell has a proposal to make that city law. Do you support her legislation? If not, how will the city meet its affordable housing needs?
• The Planning Department acknowledges that the level of new market-rate housing being discussed for the eastern neighborhoods would inevitably destroy thousands of blue-collar jobs. Is that an acceptable trade-off?
• Broadband Internet service is arguably the most important public infrastructure American cities will build in the next 50 years. Why are you prepared to turn ours over to private industry? Would it not be worth $10 million — the estimated cost put out by Google and EarthLink — to build our own system?
• You asked for the City Attorney’s Office opinion that invalidated the successful referendum drive on the Bayview–Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan. Why aren’t you willing to submit this far-reaching plan to a vote? And if you believe in the plan’s community oversight provisions and deference to the Redevelopment Agency, why did you unilaterally offer the 49ers a new stadium at the old shipyard, which is within the plan’s area?
• Why haven’t you followed up on the promise you made a year ago, after expressing outrage over the racist and homophobic videos made by police officers, to form a commission charged with "changing the culture" of the Police Department? And after your office blocked a citizen-based community policing plan, why didn’t you offer some alternative? Are you content with the way the department is being run?
• Eight months ago, after vetoing a six-month trial period for closing JFK Drive to cars on Saturdays, you promised to study Sunday closures for six months and offer a compromise plan for Saturday closures. When can we expect that proposal, and will you now support Saturday closures?
Honestly: what’s so scary about answering questions from the supervisors?
We await his honor’s response. *