Mayor

Mayoral candidates scurry for signatures

33

San Francisco mayoral candidates and their volunteers have been scrambling to gather the signatures of registered voters needed to reduce their filing fees and demonstrate popular support, over the weekend hitting popular gathering spots such as Dolores Park with a combination of earnest appeals and election-year gimmicks.

Volunteers for candidate John Avalos were the first to hit a crowded Dolores Park on Saturday, canvassing throughout the day, but they may have been upstaged by the campaign of David Chiu, which featured both the candidate himself and his Star Wars-inspired alter ego Chiu-bacca – a campaign volunteer dressed up as Chewbacca. The campaign even carried the motif through at the table it set up, which was staffed by someone in a space helmet that was reminiscent of a stormtrooper. No other mayoral or district attorney candidates seemed to have a visible presence there.

A Clonetrooper for David Chiu

Candidates have until this Thursday, July 28, to turn in the signatures of registered voters, each of which reduces that candidate’s filing fees by 50 cents. So mayoral candidates can eliminate their $5,048 filing fee (which represents 2 percent of the mayor’s $252,397 annual salary) by turning in 10,096 signatures. For district attorney candidates, the goal is 8,704 sigs, while sheriff candidates need 7,990 to get the freebie.

An Avalos volunteer gathers signatures (and possibly PBRs)

The other important upcoming election-related dates are Aug. 1, when the semi-annual campaign finance statements are due and we find out who’s been raising the most money, and Aug. 12, the deadline for candidates to file their intent to run for office. That’s when we find out whether Mayor Ed Lee breaks his pledge not to run, and whether there are any other surprise late entrants into the race, which is always a possibility.

More questions in Bayview shooting

After receiving a San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) press release issued July 21 stating that the man who died July 16 following an officer-involved shooting in the Bayview had been killed by a self-inflicted gunshot wound, I phoned the city’s Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Amy Hart.
 
I asked Hart to walk me through how the conclusion that the gunshot wound was self-inflicted had been reached. But Hart responded that the Medical Examiner has not reached any conclusion so far about the cause of Harding’s death.

“That’s not a component of the press release that we issued,” Hart said. “Maybe it’s a question that would be best addressed to the San Francisco Police Department, probably their homicide division. For us, the cause and manner of death are pending. So, we are going to complete our investigation before we discuss the manner of death. The question that you’re asking is something that came from the police press release, so you have to ask them the nature of why they said that.”

I called the SFPD and left a message, and I’ll be sure to provide an update once they call back.

The SFPD release stated that the Medical Examiner had detected two gunshot wounds in the body of Kenneth Wade Harding, Jr., the 19-year-old from Washington state who died after being shot on a crowded sidewalk in San Francisco’s Bayview neighborhood. One gunshot wound entered and exited Harding’s left leg, the statement said. A second gunshot wound entered the right side of Harding’s neck, and the bullet remained in his head. The round that was lodged in his head was of .380 caliber, police said, so it could not have come from a .40 caliber SFPD-issued firearm.

A .380 caliber round was discovered in the pocket of the jacket Harding was wearing, the press release added. “Based upon evidence known at this time including: officer and witness statements that Harding shot at the police officers, Shot Spotter data, video tape evidence that depicts a firearm at the scene that was subsequently taken and the location of gunshot residue on Harding’s right hand, it appears that Mr. Harding’s head wound was self inflicted,” the press release stated.

The Medical Examiner’s office hasn’t issued a death certificate yet, Hart said, and it generally takes several weeks to determine the cause of death.

I asked Hart if the Medical Examiner’s office had any way to determine which bullet had entered Harding’s body first.

“I wouldn’t say there’s a good way, except for eyewitness accounts,” she responded, adding that the Medical Examiner’s Office doesn’t have information to determine which bullet entered the body first.

While the Medical Examiner determined that the .380 caliber bullet entered through the right side of the neck, it is the ballistics section of SFPD’s crime lab that determines the caliber of the rounds, Hart explained.

When I asked Hart what process the Medical Examiner’s office would follow to determine the cause of death, she said, “It’s a completion of our investigation that will need to happen here at the Medical Examiner’s office. We’re going to make a final determination, and what goes into an investigation depends on a case, there’s no set thing that has to happen.” Eventually, she said, the various components of the investigation, such as witness accounts, the ballistics analysis, and the examination of the body will be merged.

Meanwhile, Mayor Ed Lee offered brief comments to the media today in response to the most recent findings released by the SFPD. The mayor attended a groundbreaking ceremony for the new Bayview Branch Library at Third and Revere streets, which is expected to open in December of 2012. Here’s a video of Lee’s response to the latest evidence released by SFPD:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YSz1l4mOHQ

Video by Rebecca Bowe

Lee was joined by District 10 Supervisor Malia Cohen as well as Sen. Mark Leno, Sen. Leland Yee, Sup. Scott Weiner, newly installed Municipal Transportation Agency Director Ed Reiskin, City Librarian Luis Herrera, and other prominent San Franciscans. City officials emphasized the positive at the press conference, stressing that the new library would be a center for learning that could serve the youth of the Bayview and offered hope for the future of a neighborhood in transition. “It’s not all doom and gloom here,” Cohen told reporters.

I asked Cohen if she had a comment about the police deparment’s latest findings, but she declined to say anything about it.

At this point, there are still a lot of unanswered questions surrounding Harding’s death. So far, the gun that discharged the .380 caliber bullet into Harding’s head has not been recovered by police. Police believe an unidentified man in a hooded sweatshirt who can be seen in a YouTube video picking up a silvery object off the sidewalk removed Harding’s weapon from the scene, and they say they are searching for the man and the gun. But if the object shown in the video is a gun, and it was Harding’s gun, it’s still not clear how it wound up some 10 yards away from the body after he shot himself.

Recology president Mike Sangiacomo disses the Guardian as landfill agreements head to full Board

4

Dressed in neon- yellow vests, a crowd of Recology employees filed into the Board’s Chambers to witness the Board’s Budget and Finance subcommittee, which Sup. Carmen Chu chairs, vote to forward the Department of Environment’s proposal to award the city’s landfill disposal and facilitation agreements to Recology (formerly NorCal Waste, Inc), to the full Board.

The B&F vote wasn’t exactly a surprise. In the past six months, Recology’s top brass have been exerting pressure on the committee members to approve the agreements, which got delayed after folks started raising questions about the lack of a franchise fee and competitive bidding on all other aspects of San Francisco’s multimillion dollar municipal solid waste stream. And lobbyist Alex Clemens reported $17, 134.25 in promised payments from Recology between January and June 2011 for services that included contact with B&F subcommittee vice-chair Ross Mirkarimi in mid-June.

If the full Board goes ahead and gives the green light July 26, that approval would authorize Recology, which Waste Age’s June 2011 issue named as the 10th largest waste management company in the U.S.,  to start transporting and disposing up to 5 million tons of municipal solid waste in its Ostrom Road Landfill in Wheatland, Yuba County, once the city’s agreement at Waste Management’s Altamont landfill in Livermore expires, which is expected to happen some time in 2014 or 2015.

The initial refusal of Mirkarimi and fellow B&F subcommittee member Sup. Jane Kim to agree to Chu’s suggestion that they forward the proposed agreements “with recommendation” appeared to be indications that both supervisors harbored some concerns about the deal. UPDATE: But According to DoE communications director Mark Westlund, before yesterday’s meeting was over, Mirkarimi called to rescind the vote on the landfill item asking for it to go to the full Board with recommendation. Jane Kim concurred, and so now it goes to the Board with unanimous committee support. 

“Overall, I think this was a good contract,” Kim said during the July 20 hearing.

Kim added that she thinks “We need to continue the dialogue,” about the city’s 1932 refuse collection and disposal ordinance, which resulted in Recology gaining a monopoly over every aspect of the city’s $225 million-a-year waste stream, except the $11-million-a-year landfill disposal agreement.

Kim noted that under the arrangement that grew out of the 1932 ordiance the city doesn’t get a  franchise fee. And she claimed that San Francisco is getting half of what other Bay Area cities, which all have franchise fees, get from their waste contractors. “So, I’m really interested in continuing that conversation, but I think it’s a separate conversation,” Kim said.

Mirkarimi, who is running for sheriff this fall, noted that he has been “the most outspoken member” of the committee on the Recology item, and that his concerns were what led the committee to “put a pause” on the deal, until the committee could “undertake more homework.”

Thanks to that pause, the city’s LAFCO committee was able to commission a report on what other jurisdictions do around transporting and disposing of their solid waste in landfills, and Mirkarimi noted that his office “held a number of meetings” and he tried to leverage this opportunity to “reanimate activity at the Port.”

“I was hoping we might be able to arrive at something much more deliverable,” Mirkarimi said, presumably referring to the fact that these efforts only resulted in DoE unveiling a last-minute amendment to include two “possible changes” to operations and facilities at the Port of San Francisco in the agreements.

These possible changes, which DoE director Melanie Nutter presented during the July 20 hearing, involve a) utilizing modes of transportation, including barges, other than, or in addition to, the rail haul plan proposed in the agreement, b) developing new facilities at the Port for the handling of waste, recyclables, organics and other refuse, meeting no later than the fifth anniversary of the agreement to discuss the feasibility of such changes, and c) incorporating into the rates, or otherwise financing, the cost of implementing such transportation alternatives and the cost of such facilities.

“I think that cost-effectively we may be able to insert the Port into this equation, but it’s not ready for prime-time yet,” Mirkarimi observed.

Mirkarimi concluded by noting the many innovative things Recology has done in terms of making the city’s waste disposal system more environmentally friendly. “This should be a front-burner conversation,” Mirkarimi said noting that Mayor Gavin Newsom made it a focus of his administration to make San Francisco the greenest city. Referring to the fact that San Francisco claims to have a 77 percent diversion rate—the highest in the U.S—Mirkarimi said, “That comes at a cost, it doesn’t come for free.”

Mirkarimi’s comments came in the wake of Nutter’s claims that Recology’s bid for the landfill disposal agreement will save ratepayers $130 million, over the 10-year course of the agreement, compared to the bid that Waste Management submitted. “This is the best deal for San Francisco,” Nutter said.

Nutter’s estimates were repeated by Jim Lazarus, who spoke on behalf of the SF Chamber of Commerce and the Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth. “This is the right contract for the people of San Francisco,” Lazarus said.

But Nutter’s $130 million estimate was thrown into question by Yuba County Sup. Roger Abe, who had driven the 130 miles from Wheatland to alert San Francisco  that Recology’s bid is based on the assumption that Yuba County will only charge San Francisco a $4.40 per ton host fee.

As Abe pointed out, Yuba’s rates have not changed in 14 years, and his county is considering increasing them later this year by up to $20 or $30 a ton.
Such an increase, multiplied by the 5-million tons of garbage in the agreement, could dramatically increase the cost to San Francisco ratepayers over the course of 10 years, Abe observed..

[If Yuba County approves an increase, and diesel fuel prices also increase, it could eliminate much of the cost differential between Recology’s and WM’s bid: a recent Budget and Legislative Analyst report shows that Recology would charge $58.94 a ton, ($28.53 for tipping and other fees + $30.14 transportation cost per ton), while WM would charge $66.79 for tipping and other fees + $18.33 transportation costs per ton.). But if diesel rises above $2:30 a gallon, SF ratepayers could also get hit with a fuel surcharge.]

Also speaking at the hearing was former D10 supervisorial candidate Tony Kelly, who along with retired Judge Quentin Kopp, David Gavrich’s SF Bay Railroad, and other concerned citizens, recently gathered 12,000 signatures to qualify a petition to require all aspects of San Francisco’s $225-million-a-year waste services to be put out to bid, and to require the winning bidder to pay San Francisco an annual franchise fee.

Kelly et al were originally aiming to qualify their petition for the 2011 ballot, but they blame what Kelly described during public comment as, “a very expensive advertising campaign,” by Recology, plus harassment of petition gatherers and signers, as why they ultimately had to delay qualifying their initiative until the June 2012 election cycle.

Kelly urged the committee to probe the details of a $10 million Special Reserve fund, which Recology could access, under the terms of its facilitation agreement, to cover all its expenses that have not yet been reimbursed through rate hikes. “You’d think the Budget and Finance sub-committee would want to explore those things,” Kelly said.

David Gavrich, who is also President & CEO of Waste Solutions Group, which has hauled 6 million tons of waste in the last 20 years, said approving the landfill disposal agreement, without knowing what rates Yuba County are about to set, was tantamount to “opening up San Francisco’s check book to Yuba County.”

“Recology has never moved a single ton by rail,” Gavrich also asserted.

But while none of the supervisors asked for any clarification of details in the proposed agreements, including the last-minute amendment, during the hearing, Chu was quick to comment about Gavrich’s “blank check” comment, noting that any county can increase its rates. “Alameda County already charges a lot more, so there are no guarantees either way,” Chu said.

She also claimed that the agreements had been subjected to a “very extensive, competitive and open process, especially around tipping fees.” What Chu didn’t mention is that earlier this week, WM filed a writ of mandate with San Francisco Superior Court to prevent the final award of a new long-term solid waste transportation agreement and landfill disposal contract to Recology ordinances, on the grounds that the deal violates the City’s competitive procurement laws.

Instead, Chu urged moving on the deal as soon as possible, by invoking the specter of a disaster hitting San Francisco before a landfill agreement is reached.
“Imagine if we had to go to the open market,” Chu said, apparently ignoring the fact that WM has stated that it would take SF’s waste in an emergency.

After the vote, Kelly expressed concern that the agreements are not competitive, but cost-plus, which means all costs get passed along to ratepayers. And that the city continues to lack a contract and ensuing franchise fees. “They are running this as if it’s still the 1950s,” Kelly said.

Kelly claimed that Recology Vice President John Legnitto, who is the 2011 Chair of the SF Chamber of Commerce’s Board, told him that Recology had been in negotiations with City Hall around a $4 million franchise fee, but that the money would now be spent opposing Kelly et al’s competitive bidding initiative.
But when the Guardian approached Legnitto after the hearing, he refused to comment, telling me my questions should go to Recology’s Robert Reed.
And Recology President Mike Sangiacomo, who was speaking to Chronicle reporter Rachel Gordon rudely told me, “Not today thank you,” when I approached him seeking comment on the Board committee’s vote.

“What did you do to him?” Gordon asked, as she followed Sangiacomo into a corner of City Hall. Er, nothing. Except what any self-respecting reporter would do. Like ask questions, read documents, and challenge the spin.

But that something clearly has ruffled the feathers of Recology’s top brass.
 “It’s like Godzilla, it’s like Monster Island, they can’t help themselves,” Beyond Chron’s Eric Smith commented to me during the hearing. “I’m disgusted by how money, labor and all these different entities can influence what happens. They don’t care about the little people. They care about the bottom line.”

Smith, who ran for D10 supervisor in 2010, spoke to the huge pressure that has been exerted on those supervisors who have publicly raised questions about Recology’s monopoly over all other aspects of the city’s $225 million-per-year waste stream. “Big corporations like Recology throw big money around and intimidate the electeds,” Smith said.

Meanwhile, DoE deputy director David Assmann confirmed that the City Attorney’s Office is looking at WM’s writ of mandate. But Assmann added that it is too early to respond to questions about the implications of that legal action on the Recology agreements.

Assmann also responded to a number of questions I’d already raised on the Guardian’s blog about the juicy details buried in the Recology agreements, beginning with a special reserve fund that was established in 1988, as part of Recology’s facilitation agreement that governed the transportation of waste to WM’s Altamont landfill, which is where San Francisco has been depositing its trash since 1987, and that will be rolled over to form the basis of a new special reserve fund.

Assmann said the fund currently contains almost $29 million, but only needs a baseline of $15 million. The extra funds will be the subject of a hearing this fall, he said, to determine how to use the balance, including exploring the possibility of using the funds, which were collected through a 1.3 percent surcharge on ratepayers, to lower the garbage rates.

Assmann also noted that while there is no limit on how much Yuba County can theoretically increase its host fees, “there has to be a nexus with associated costs,” and that Yuba County supervisors would have to bring any such proposed increase, which would also apply to all their other landfill users, to their voters.

Assmann further noted that the idea behind developing new facilities relates to the city’s 2020 goal of zero waste is “to get to zero waste we need new methods of handling waste,” Assmann told me explaining that San Francisco wants to be able to take residual material and process it so it could be recycled and wouldn’t end up in the landfill.

Assmann said a consultant is comparing the feasibility of building those facilities on land next to Recology’s Tunnel Road facility in Brisbane, or on land the Port owns in San Francisco, and the report should be completed later this year. He also noted that the transportation amendment would allow the City to switch or improve its transportation mode, during the life of the agreement, should cleaner technologies be developed, “including trains that run on less polluting fuel.”

Assmann clarified that San Francisco ratepayers won’t be footing the cost of building a new rail spur in Yuba County. “We’re not paying capital costs. The rail spur is not a cost that Recology can charge because it’s out of county. And if San Francisco only produces 2 million tons during the life of the agreement, we are under no obligation beyond that.”

And he noted that a potential $10 million contingency payment would only go into play if the City gave Recology the green light, and the company incurred costs related to rail haul, and the City then reneged on its deal, at which point Recology could then use its incurred costs to justify why it needs up to $10 million to included in the garbage rates.

All interesting details as we approach the Board’s July 26 vote—with a lawsuit hanging over the City’s head. So stay tuned…

Carfree crowd praises SFMTA’s choice of Reiskin

4

Today’s announcement of Ed Reiskin as the new executive director of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency is being warmly welcomed by bicyclists, transit riders, and other advocates for alternatives to the automobile – and not just because Reiskin doesn’t own a car and gets around by bike and Muni.

As the head of the Department of Public Works, Reiskin transformed the agency into one that facilitated the creation of more vibrant public spaces and safer, multi-use streets, overseeing some of the Newsom Administration’s most significant progressive accomplishments.

“He really began the process of turning DPW into a complete streets agency,” says Tom Radulovich, executive director of Livable City and an elected member of BART’s Board of Directors. He noted that Reiskin is widely respected by city staff, department heads, and a variety of community groups.

San Francisco Bicycle Coalition director Leah Shahum said she was “really pleased” with the choice – saying Reiskin has been “lights years ahead” of previous DPW administrators – and said it bodes well for an agency that faces some difficult challenges.

“I think Ed Reiskin has proven himself as a leader and someone who is really involved with San Francisco,” she said. “He will be the MTA director who most understands the real needs that San Franciscans have in terms of mobility.”

For example, she said Reiskin prioritized repaving and filling in potholes on streets that have bike lanes, where bad pavement can cause serious crashes or conflicts with drivers. “The fact is he understands that is a safety issue,” she said.

Radulovich offered two cautionary notes in his praise of the choice. The first was his hope that Reiskin will be allowed to take the bold action the MTA needs to reform Muni and create truly mulit-modal, safe streets, rather than being micromanaged and having the agency turned into a piggybank for other departments, as Mayor Newsom did with former MTA director Nat Ford.

“Is the mayor finally going to allow the MTA director to do what he needs to do to fix the agency?” Radulovich asked.

Secondly, he fears that DPW might backslide to the days before Reiskin took over, when the agency was removing public benches all over the city and making public spaces less inviting, rather than taking the lead on creating new, more inviting public spaces – from parklets to Sunday Streets – as Reiskin did.

“The worst case is you don’t gain anything at the MTA and you lose something at Public Works,” Radulovich said.

For his part, Mayor Ed Lee sounded a note of optimism that Reiskin will transform the agency. “I thank the SFMTA Board of Directors for their thoughtful, deliberative and unanimous support of Ed Reiskin as the new leader of the SFMTA,” Lee in a prepared statement. “Now is the time to focus on the future of the SFMTA and continue to make good on our promise to San Francisco transit riders and taxpayers by creating greater efficiency in our transit system, improving on-time performance, and honoring our City’s Transit First Policy.”

Decide, Ed, Decide

23

So Ed Lee maybe, sorta is thinking he might want to consider running for mayor. He tells folks in the Mission that “I’ve made no decision yet.” He leaves the Chron with some pretty strong hints:


Asked if he would categorically rule out running in November, Lee sidestepped the question, saying he is proud of his achievements so far, including unanimous votes at the board this week on his budget and his pension reform plan, and has more goals to accomplish, like increasing the city’s workforce and affordable housing stock.


When a reporter noted to the mayor that his answer didn’t rule out running, Lee smiled and hopped into his car.


That alone is a clear and dramatic shift in his position. He told us back in February that running in November was out of the question:


Although rumors had been circulating that Lee might seek a full term, he told the Guardian he’s serious about serving as a caretaker mayor. “If I’m going to thrust all my energy into this, I don’t need to have to deal with … a campaign to run for mayor.”


So now he’s being coy — and that’s not an appealing position for a mayor who has made it his trademark to be honest and straightforward with people.


I know what’s happening: Some of his best friends and allies are terrified of the prospect of Mayor Leland Yee, and Yee appears to be the frontrunner — and so some powerful people are putting immense pressure on him to put aside his own desires and do what they think is best for the city (which means blocking Yee).


If Lee wants to run, that’s his choice. I know he said he wouldn’t, but times change and the situation changes and that’s why I was against the whole “caretaker” mayor thing in the first place. When you define someone as a caretaker who can’t run again, you deprive San Franciscans of the right to choose the next mayor. (I don’t like legislative term limits, either — same argument.)


But this dancing around and playing games is a bad thing. Run, Ed, Run, or Don’t, Ed, Don’t — but please: Decide, Ed, Decide. Now. Then you can start telling everyone the truth and we can believe it.


 

Editorial: Don’t gut SF campaign law

1

The U.S. Supreme Court, which has already ruled that corporations can spend all the money they want on political campaigns, dealt another huge blow to democracy in June when it struck down a campaign finance law in Arizona that was designed to level the playing field for candidates running against better-financed opponents.

The ruling has implications for San Francisco’s public finance law, and already the Ethics Commission has moved to amend — some would say gut — the ordinance. The supervisors also have to approve the changes, and they should move cautiously; there is much about the local law that can still be saved, and there are experts working on alternative models that could still work under the Arizona ruling.

The Arizona law gave public funds to candidates who agreed to limit personal spending to $500. The more privately financed opponents and independent expenditure (IE) committees spent on a candidate, the more public matching money the other candidates received.

The idea: if one rich candidate — or one candidate supported by deep-pocketed special interests — tried to dominate the election, the others would be given enough money to make things fair.

That’s the same motivation behind San Francisco’s law, which sets a spending limit for the mayoral and supervisorial races, provides matching funds for small contributions — and gives public money to candidates who are attacked by outside independent expenditure committees.

It’s possible that the current IE match won’t hold up to legal scrutiny under the Arizona decision. And already some of the city’s biggest downtown interests are threatening to sue to overturn the local ordinance. But there is much about the San Francisco law that will likely survive a court challenge.

Bob Stern, a campaign finance expert and president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, told us that he’s working on a new model law for cities like San Francisco. The Ethics Commission knew that when it voted July 11 to eliminate matching for IEs and to reduce the available pot of money.

Now the law comes to the Board of Supervisors, where eight votes are required to accept the Ethics Commission amendments. Good government advocates say the supervisors should do only what is clearly legally necessary: “The Ethics Commission should have used a scalpel, not a sledgehammer,” Oliver Luby, a former commission staffer, told us.

The November mayor’s race is a huge test for the city’s law; this will be the first time effective public financing will be in place for a citywide race, and the success of the ordinance will draw national attention. The supervisors should stop short of so badly amending it that it will lose all its teeth.

The board should hold public hearings and solicit input from local and national experts. The supervisors shouldn’t be intimidated by downtown lawsuits and consider only the most limited changes — after reviewing every possible alternative. 

 

 

 

Wage theft prevention ordinance moves forward

Supervisors expressed strong support July 20 for an ordinance that a San Francisco coalition of labor advocates is pushing for to prevent wage theft and shore up protections for low-income workers. Spearheaded by Sups. Eric Mar and David Campos with Sups. Ross Mirkarimi, Jane Kim, John Avalos, and David Chiu as co-sponsors, the legislation would enhance the power of the city’s Office of Labor Standards and Enforcement (OLSE) and double fines for employers who retaliate against workers.

Dozens of low-wage restaurant workers, caregivers, and day laborers turned out for a July 20 Budget & Finance Committee meeting to speak in support of the Wage Theft Prevention Ordinance, which was drafted in partnership with the Progressive Workers Alliance. The umbrella organization includes grassroots advocacy groups such as the Chinese Progressive Association, the Filipino Community Center, Pride at Work, Young Workers United, and others.

A restaurant worker who gave his name as Edwin said during the hearing that he’d been granted no work breaks, no time off, and had his tips stolen by his employer during a two-and-a-half year stint in a San Francisco establishment, only to be fired for trying to take a paid sick day. “When I was let go, I did not receive payment for my last days there,” he said.

His experience is not uncommon. An in-depth study of labor conditions in Chinatown restaurants conducted by the Chinese Progressive Association found that some 76 percent of employees did not receive overtime pay when they worked more than 40 hours in a week, and roughly half were not being paid San Francisco’s minumum wage of $9.92 an hour.

“People who need a job and can’t afford to lose it are vulnerable to exploitation,” Shaw San Liu, an organizer with the Chinese Progressive Association who has been instrumental in advancing the campaign to end wage theft, told the Guardian.

The ordinance would increase fines against employers from $500 to $1,000 for retaliating against workers who stand up for their rights under local labor laws. It would establish $500 penalties for employers who don’t bother to post notice of the minimum wage, don’t provide contact information, neglect to notify employees when OLSE is conducting a workplace investigation, or fail to comply with settlement agreements in the wake of a dispute. It would also establish a timeline in which worker complaints must be addressed.

“The fact is that even though we have minimum wage laws in place, those laws are still being violated not only throughout the country but here in San Francisco,” Campos told the Guardian. “Wage theft is a crime, and we need to make sure that there is adequate enforcement — and that requires a change in the law so that we provide the Office of Labor Standards and Enforcement more tools and more power to make sure that the rights of workers are protected. Not only does it protect workers, but it also protects businesses, because the vast majority of businesses in San Francisco are actually … complying with the law, and it’s not fair for them to let a small minority that are not doing that get away with it.”

So far, the ordinance is moving through the board approval process with little resistance. Mayor Ed Lee has voiced support, and Budget Committee Chair Carmen Chu, who is often at odds with board progressives, said she supported the goal of preventing wage theft and thanked advocates for their efforts during the hearing. The item was continued to the following week due to several last-minute changes, and will go before the full board on Aug. 2.

Mayor Lee meets with Bayview community leaders about officer-involved shooting

Mayor Ed Lee and officials from the San Francisco Police Department met with Bayview community leaders in City Hall July 19 to discuss the police investigation surrounding a July 16 officer-involved shooting that has prompted intense community anger and protests. While city officials indicated that the meeting was called to provide information and updates for the community, frustrated community members emerging from the City Hall conference room dismissed it as “more of a lecture,” saying city officials weren’t open to hearing broader community concerns that have intensified in the wake of this tragic event.

Reporters were not allowed in the room while the meeting was held because “it’s more of a community meeting,” according to mayoral communications staff member Francis Tsang. Attendees included Bayview community leaders Chris Jackson, Geoffrea Morris, Mike Brown, Charlie Walker, Ed Donaldson, and the Rev. Amos Brown. District 10 Sup. Malia Cohen also issued invitations to the meeting, which was scheduled at the same time as the full Board of Supervisors meeting, and sent a representative.


The shooting victim was Kenneth Harding Jr., 19, from Washington. Police say he fired one round at officers before police fired nine rounds, killing him. However, some witnesses initially reported that they did not see Harding fire a gun, and a firearm wasn’t immediately recovered from the scene. Police initially tried to detain Harding on the station platform of the Oakdale / Palou stop on the T-Third line on suspected fare evasion. After Harding was killed, it came to light that he had a criminal history and had been named as a person of interest in the fatal shooting of a 19-year-old pregnant woman from Washington. The incident, which occurred in broad daylight and was captured on film and witnessed by people who were out on the street, proved to be a traumatizing event for a low-income, predominantly African American community where tensions already run high between police and residents.

Lee indicated to the Guardian that the July 19 meeting had been called primarily to clear up misinformation. “There have been a lot of stories spreading about what did and didn’t occur, and we felt it was necessary to get the community updated as quickly as possible,” Lee said. “Any time there is a death in any community we’re very concerned … this one in particular has been represented in many different ways, and a lot of it has been very inflammatory in terms of what people have said occurred. We’ve heard points like there was no gun, when in fact now we’ve found a gun through police investigation. That there was no shot made at officers when … the officers have at least some evidence through the ShotSpotter program that there was an initial shot made by the suspect.”

Lee added that MUNI staff had reported people relaying “all kinds of stories” while riding the buses. “These are very hard, hard feelings,” he said. “So I felt it necessary that we confront this head on with community leaders. We met with some yesterday, we’re meeting with some today, [Police Chief Greg Suhr] is hosting a town-hall meeting in the Bayview tomorrow to yet again find every opportunity to fully explain what they have uncovered as the evidence, and to make sure people base their views on the facts.” A larger community meeting is scheduled for July 20 at 6 p.m. at the Bayview Opera House.

Meanwhile, Bayview community leaders Chris Jackson and Geoffrea Morris were not pleased when they emerged from the conference room. “The mayor left without hearing one public comment,” Morris said. “It was just a lecture. It wasn’t addressing the police, and how they deal with fare evasion, and harass people along the T train. It was not that. It was just, the mayor said his little thing, did not say goodbye, and ran out.”

Morris went on, “We don’t have grief counselors out there. We don’t have the police saying that they’ll stay off the T-Train platform until the investigation is done. We thought this meeting was going to be for them to go, ‘where do we go from here?’ And the thing that people are missing … whatever demon that boy had, that was a human life.” Concerns are still swirling about how long it took for an ambulance to arrive after the shooting, Morris said, and about how police arrived at the scene with high-powered weapons which they kept drawn even as Harding writhed in a pool of blood on the sidewalk.

Morris and Jackson said that during the meeting, officials showed a Channel 7 TV news broadcast clip and played an audio of gunshots being fired to demonstrate that the suspect had fired an initial shot before police opened fire. “We all have Internet, smart phones, and all the footage as well,” Morris said. “I was there on the site.”

Shortly after the meeting, the San Francisco Police Department issued a statement to announce that gunshot residue had been detected on Harding’s right hand during an investigation. “The presence of gunshot residue on Harding’s right hand supports statements from witnesses that Harding held the gun in his right hand as he fired at the police officers,” the press release stated. It went on to note that the presence of gunshot residue on an individual’s hand could indicate that the individual fired a gun, or was in close proximity to a gun when it was fired, or touched something that was coated with gunshot residue.

Morris and Jackson also voiced concerns that went beyond the details of this particular case. “The response really needs to be a policy shift,” Jackson said. “We need a better approach in terms of violence prevention. We cannot address this with more cops on the T line.”

Jackson, who ran for District 10 supervisor in 2010, also questioned why police officers had been tasked with fare evasion enforcement on the T-Third line in the first place. MUNI also employs fare inspectors, he pointed out, and the city has a specialized program, called the ambassadors program, which was created last year in the wake of violence along the T-Third line directed at members of the Asian community. “Where was the public conversation about putting cops on MUNI trains?” Jackson wanted to know. “Who came up with that idea?”

Asked about this, Lee told the Guardian that he had specifically requested a higher police presence in areas where higher levels of crime were anticipated – and the July 16 shooting occurred in just such an area.

“I actually asked the chief to pay more attention to areas that had a history of gun violence and shootings and other kinds of violence … and it just so happens that this particular area, Third and Palou, is a place where there’s a lot of violence,” Lee said. “So we had more uniformed officers on that specifically at not only my request, but with the understanding of the police chief, too. He’s trying to do his best to keep everybody safe. And that in the summer, with all of the evidence that we have about where the shootings are and where they’re occurring, we naturally focus on areas where we think there’s going to be more violence to have more presence. So circumstances occurred where an individual was stopped because of a fare evasion, and I believe police were there to begin to detain him, and ask him to provide some evidence of who he is and why he did what he did, and that turned out to be a chase. A chase is one thing, but a chase with an opening of a firearm is a completely different thing.”

Meanwhile, Bayview community residents who ride the T-Third line experienced delays in recent days because MUNI operations staff decided to stop running light rail trains into the Bayview, instead dropping people off partway through the route and then directing them to wait for shuttle buses.

On July 18, a little before dark, a T-Third driver stopped at the Marin Street stop and announced that all passengers would have to wait for a shuttle bus. When passengers demanded to know why, she responded, “They’re acting up on Third Street, and our bosses don’t want us in the middle of it.”

According to SFMTA spokesperson Kristen Holland, operations staff began receiving reports around 6:30 or 7 p.m. July 18 that “there were upwards of 50 people walking on the right-of-way for the trains. As a safety precaution, our operations folks deployed buses for that portion of the line. We were told that they started at the southern terminus, and were walking north.”

This Guardian reporter hopped onto a shuttle bus with a notebook in hand after hearing that people were “acting up,” but by the time the bus made its way into the heart of the Bayview, the streets were calm. A MUNI employee who asked not to be named said he’d heard that someone had kicked in a window on one of the T-Third cars, and that was why the trains weren’t going through.

Meanwhile, the unexpected transfer left passengers weary, since for many waiting for the shuttle marked a second or third transfer on public transportation to get home. “People’s kind of frustrated. You go a few blocks, and they say it’s the end of the line. You go a couple blocks and they tell you the same thing,” said Darwin Green.

Another passenger, a youth who was with a friend and seemed concerned about the unfamiliar route the shuttle bus was taking, said, “I think it’s bullshit that they’re issuing citations. And there’s no need to shoot somebody because they didn’t have change for the bus fare.”
 
Another passenger was also disgruntled about the delays. Asked what he thought about everything that had been going on in recent days, he said, “It seems like they spend an awful lot of money in wages chasing down $2 fares.”

The long wait for sleep

7

rebeccab@sfbg.com

Rodney Palmer is 52, and he uses a cane because he has a bad hip. Walking is painful for the homeless native San Franciscan, but to reserve a bed at a shelter, he’s got to get up early and cover a lot of ground. “I get up at 4 a.m. and go to Glide” in hopes of getting a long-term shelter bed, he told the Guardian. “By the time I get there, there’s people sleeping on the ground.”

People arrive at the homeless assistance center so early because the shelter beds that can be reserved for 90 days free up at 7 a.m. on a first-come, first-served basis — and they’re quickly snapped up.

Palmer reached into his sock and pulled out a small plastic bag full of painkillers to demonstrate how he copes. Lately he hasn’t had any luck getting a long-term bed, so he’s devoting many hours a day to getting on wait lists for overnight beds. That means heading to drop-in centers in SoMa and the Mission, where at least there are chairs he can rest in. “It’s an all-day job,” he said. When it comes to waiting outside, “I feel vulnerable. People can die like that when the winter comes.”

 

BEYOND SHELTER

A coalition of homeless advocates is trying to change the way shelter beds are allocated in San Francisco, and District 6 Supervisor Jane Kim has taken up their cause, spearheading an initiative for the Nov. 8 ballot. The Fair Shelter Initiative would eliminate “shelter” from the definition of housing under Care Not Cash, the signature homeless policy created under former Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Since about 41 percent of shelter beds are set aside as housing for Care Not Cash recipients — who represent an estimated 7 percent of the city’s homeless population — advocates say the move would effectively free up long-term shelter space for veterans, disabled people, seniors, and others who don’t qualify for Care Not Cash. It would, they say, give everyone an equal shot at getting a bed.

At the same time, proponents say, it would solve a recurring problem of beds going unfilled even as shelter seekers wait for hours on end only to be turned away or to finally give up, discouraged by the system.

Cyn Bivens, a peer advocate at Mission Neighborhood Resource Center, says roughly 60 people sign up for shelter beds on a given day at his facility. People who are trying for the 90-day beds show up before 7 a.m.

“They may drop between one and five beds, but we may have 50 people in line,” Bivens explains. “Usually, by 7:15, I’m saying sorry, they’ve only dropped two beds.” People then continue to sign up all day in hopes of reserving overnight beds, which are released later in the day. Bivens estimates that about half the people who start out seeking a bed don’t wind up getting one.

While Kim and supporters of the Fair Shelter Initiative view the proposed change as a simple adjustment that would improve a dysfunctional system, they face opposition from Mayor Ed Lee and Human Services Agency Director Trent Rohrer, who have described it as a bid to dismantle Care Not Cash.

 

$59 A MONTH

As things stand, several hundred indigent adults in San Francisco benefit from County Adult Assistance Programs (CAAP), an umbrella encompassing General Assistance and several other programs intended for people who are waiting to receive Social Security Income (SSI) or seeking employment.

Each month, CAAP beneficiaries are allocated a maximum of $422, or $342 in the case of General Assistance recipients, but they never actually see that money. Instead, under Care Not Cash, they receive $65 and $59, respectively, since the rest is deducted for housing. Some CAAP recipients have actual housing in single-room occupancy (SRO) hotels, but roughly two-thirds are guaranteed shelter beds to meet their housing needs, according to an estimate from the Coalition on Homelessness.

The upshot of this system is that most CAAP recipients are effectively made to pay up to $357 a month from their benefits to sleep on a cot in a shelter, provided they make it there by curfew. For one frustrated homeless man on General Assistance who spoke at a July 14 hearing about the proposed initiative, living on less than $2 a day rather than closer to $11 a day was making it very difficult for him to improve his situation.

“I’m trying to look for work,” he said, adding that he’d seen job postings in other cities. “How am I going to subsidize my trip to Emeryville or San Jose? I’m stuck, and there are things that I cannot do.”

Mark Leach, another homeless CAAP beneficiary, said the low cash grant posed a vexing problem for him too: “I can’t afford to pay my phone bill.” Living on nothing more than $65 a month can mean living in isolation, with no way to receive calls in case work becomes available.

Another issue arising from the current system, according to Bob Offer-Westort of the Coalition on Homelessness, is that a disproportionately high number of beds are reserved for the relatively small number of CAAP recipients citywide, and those program beneficiaries don’t always use their beds. Some don’t make it to the shelter in time for curfew, others couch surf, and still others may prefer to sleep outside, far from the confines and crowds of the shelters. If they don’t show up to claim the bed, it will eventually become available to someone else for the night — but that can take hours. So people who either aren’t enrolled in CAAP or don’t already have long-term beds are reduced to waiting, day after day, for space to free up overnight.

If the Fair Shelter Initiative were in place, CAAP recipients “won’t be guaranteed a shelter bed” as part of Care Not Cash, says Offer-Westort. “But they’ll be competing for more beds,” he added, which “should reduce the wait time.”

In the meantime, CAAP recipients who aren’t being housed in SROs or some other transitional housing would receive the full amount of their benefits. Rohrer, the HSA director, seized on this point as problematic, saying that doling out the full cash grants would draw people to San Francisco from other counties where benefits are lower. “If we start to get folks from other counties and states … the result will be more homeless people in San Francisco and less access for folks,” Rohrer said.

Jennifer Friedenbach of the Coalition on Homelessness countered this, saying, “they have never been able to prove that people will come from out of town.” She addressed the notion that the Fair Shelter Initiative would dismantle Care Not Cash by saying, “It’s news to me — big news — that shelter is the entirety of Care Not Cash.”

Opponents of the measure who spoke at the hearing argued that $422 a month was too much to give to a homeless person because it could feed addiction. While it’s true that many homeless people in San Francisco have substance-abuse issues, many others are disabled or have just fallen on hard times. Advocates say they’ve noted a surge in newly homeless people accessing services, particularly women.

 

HUNDREDS OF BEDS CUT

Compounding the overall problem is that more than 300 shelter beds have been lost since 2004. During the hearing, L.J. Cirilo ticked off a long list of homeless service programs and facilities that had vanished in recent years due to budget cuts, going on for several minutes.

Palmer falls into the category of people who might benefit from a shorter wait time if Kim’s initiative were in place. He was just one of many who turned up at the Mission Neighborhood Resource Center — a homeless drop-in center that offers a clinic, shower, and laundry facilities — to watch a movie and eat supper. Two of the others there said they had experienced traumatic brain injuries and had been victims of identity theft. A construction worker explained that he was seeking odd jobs with little luck. Another man shuffled impatiently back and forth as he spoke, scratching incessantly, while he condemned the entire homeless services system as corrupt.

The measure has drawn opposition from Mayor Lee, who is “concerned that changes to Care Not Cash may begin a process that would unravel the program,” according to Christine Falvey, Lee’s spokesperson. “He wants to make sure we don’t do anything to prevent our department from providing the program.”

Falvey also noted that Lee was interested in meeting with advocates to find an administrative fix, rather than a ballot initiative, that could address concerns about the shortcomings of the shelter system. Kim expressed some openness to that idea at a hearing, but seemed committed to moving forward with changing the system that’s in place. “We do want to address inequity,” she said. “There absolutely should be no vacant beds.”

Digging into the juicy details of Recology’s proposed landfill disposal and facilitation agreements

1

Last weekend, I tried to review online the details of the landfill disposal and facilitation agreements with Recology that the Board’s Budget & Finance committee votes on Wednesday, July 20, (assuming Waste Management’s petition for a writ of mandate doesn’t throw a monkey wrench into the committee’s scheduled vote on those agreements. And when I finally got to view the agreements in person, they raised a number of questions.

(WM has asked the Superior Court to issue a temporary, preliminary and permanent injunction, immediately enjoining the City and Recology from conducting any further action in connection with those agreements, including finally awarding them to Recology, and requiring the City to set aside and vacate the agreements, based on the grounds that they were not procured in accordance with the City’s competitive procurement laws. But as of press time, the City Attorney’s office had not issued any statement leading me to conclude that the hearing will proceed as planned.)

As it happens, my online research was thwarted by the fact that not all of the details in the proposed agreement with Recology are available electronically. So, on Monday I headed to City Hall. And I spent most of the day in the Clerk of the Board’s office, where I reviewed a) the contract language, b) the history of how the Recology was tentatively awarded the 10-year landfill disposal contract by the Department of the Environment, c) how Waste Management has been complaining ever since about what it perceives to be the unfair process whereby Recology was also awarded the city’s facilitation agreement, which governs how San Francisco’s waste would be hauled to the landfill, and d) why the Budget and Legislative Analyst recommended that the Board consider submitting a proposition to the voters to repeal the city’s 1932 refuse ordinance so future refuse collection and transportation services would be awarded under the city’s normal competitive bidding process, and require that refuse collection rates for residential and commercial services be henceforth subject to Board approval.

Heading into tomorrow’s hearing at 10 a.m, the Board has still not submitted any such ordinance (So, here are some of the questions that came up as a result of my research that I would like to learn more about before the committee takes its vote.

1. Why pay $10 million to build a rail spur in Yuba County if San Francisco’s goal is to have zero waste by 2020?

The landfill disposal agreement grants the city the right to deposit at Recology’s Ostrom Road landfill in Wheatland, Yuba County, all solid waste collected in San Francisco until Dec. 31, 2025, or until 5 million tons has been deposited. But according to the landfill disposal agreement’s Appendix B, which cites the city’s landfill disposal targets, San Francisco is projected to produce 2.4 million tons of trash between now and 2019, with zero waste projected for 2020. That got me wondering why get San Francisco ratepayers paying $10 million for the construction of a rail spur in Yuba County that would only get a few years heavy use, if these estimates are indeed accurate?

2. Just how green is my city?

According to the landfill agreement, the commencement date, when all or substantially all of the city’s solid waste is first accepted, may not be later than January 1, 2019. But according to the agreement’s Appendix B, San Francisco has an annual disposal target of 36, 614 tons in 2019, and zero waste in 2020. So are those figures just pie in the sky? And if so, is San Francisco’s claim to be the “greenest city in the U.S.” a tad overblown? Or is an independent agency like Cal ReCycle auditing these claims?

3. Oops. Are we about to authorize a $10-million annual slush fund?

Last year, the city held a hearing to consider plans to reallocate 1.3 percent of its ratepayers’ overall refuse rates that previously went to a special reserve fund that then contained $28 million, and that was initially created as a result of the city’s 1987 facilitation agreement to cover extraordinary costs associated with WM’s Altamont landfill and hazardous waste control and disposal.

There are still several years to go at Altamont (see number 1), but last fall, the Rate Board, which consisted of then City Administrator (and now mayor) Ed Lee, Deputy City Controller Monique Zmuda and SFPUC director Ed Harrington, voted 3-0 to authorize the Director of Public Works to reallocate the 1.3 percent billing surcharge to an impound account to offset DPW’s recycling and waste management costs for the period of July 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011.

“The change will not affect the monthly rate charged for residential collection service and the reallocation will be reviewed as part of the public process to review and update refuse rates, expected to take place in 2011 or 2012,” DPW’s website stated. “The city is proposing these changes to help meet San Francisco’s goal of diverting 75 percent of its waste from landfills by 2010 and to achieve zero waste by 2020.” (See number 2 in my list.)

The city also noted the need for a public hearing to discuss the special reserve fund and its uses, before September 30, 2011 (which is 10 weeks away). But to date, there appears not to have been any such hearing. Meanwhile, the city’s proposed amended facilitation agreement with Recology mentions establishing another special reserve fund, for no less than $10 million, this time funded from a one percent surcharge on all waste delivered to Recology’s transfer station, landfill and back-up landfill.

And the agreement stipulates that Recology may draw upon the reserve fund “from time to time” to reimburse costs that have or will be incurred by Recology, but have not yet been fully reimbursed, (“e.g. because a corresponding adjustment in rates has not yet taken effect, or has taken effect but has not yet been fully reimbursed.”) Such costs include all fees and penalties, including the $10 million cost of constructing a new rail spur and facility in Yuba County that Recology could become liable for if the city breaches the landfill disposal contract, or there is a delay in the contract’s commencement date.

So, does this mean that Recology will potentially have access to an additional $10 million a year for a decade, in addition to its guaranteed $200 million-a-year from the rest of the city’s collection, consolidation, transfer and composting non-biddable agreements? And does that inflate the worth of Recology’s landfill disposal and facilitation agreements by an additional $100 million?

4. Why isn’t the business related to San Francisco’s mandatory composting ordinance put out to bid, since our organics appear to be processed in Vacaville?

In the city’s master file on the disposal and facilitation agreements, I came across the following figures related to the carbon footprint of the city’s proposed rail tranportation plan: in 2008, an estimated 471, 551 tons of San Francisco material were trucked to Waste Management’s Altamont landfill. And 140,213 tons were hauled to the Hay Road landfill in Vacaville of which 105,704 tons were composted, and the remaining 34,509 tons were used as alternative daily cover.

Moving forward, the proposed plan is to rail transport the city’s annual tonnage to Recology’s Ostrom Road landfill for disposal, organics processing and alternative daily cover, and transport some of the organics for digestion by the East Bay Municipal Utility District. What’s less clear is the value of the city’s mandatory composting ordinance from a business perspective, how it came to fall under Recology’s monopoly, given that it’s being processed outside city limits, and whether the organics hauling was factored into DoE’s “green” equation, when evaluating landfill disposal proposals, and Recology’s facilitation agreement?

5. Has WM actually acquired a temporary writ and if so, what does this mean for any vote that the Board subcommittee takes on the proposed agreements? Neither the City Attorney’s Office nor WM’s attorneys got back to me with an answer to this question, as of press time, but it would be good to clear this question up before the voting begins tomorrow.

I have more questions which I hope Sups. Carmen Chu, Jane Kim and Ross Mirkarimi, who sit on the Board’s Budget & Finance sub-Committee, will drill into tomorrow, but either way, stay tuned as we approach what promises to be an educational vote tomorrow, one way or another….

Don’t gut SF campaign law

0

The U.S. Supreme Court, which has already ruled that corporations can spend all the money they want on political campaigns, dealt another huge blow to democracy in June when it struck down a campaign finance law in Arizona that was designed to level the playing field for candidates running against better-financed opponents.

The ruling has implications for San Francisco’s public finance law, and already the Ethics Commission has moved to amend — some would say gut — the ordinance. The supervisors also have to approve the changes, and they should move cautiously; there is much about the local law that can still be saved, and there are experts working on alternative models that could still work under the Arizona ruling.

The Arizona law gave public funds to candidates who agreed to limit personal spending to $500. The more privately financed opponents and independent expenditure (IE) committees spent on a candidate, the more public matching money the other candidates received.

The idea: if one rich candidate — or one candidate supported by deep-pocketed special interests — tried to dominate the election, the others would be given enough money to make things fair.

That’s the same motivation behind San Francisco’s law, which sets a spending limit for the mayoral and supervisorial races, provides matching funds for small contributions — and gives public money to candidates who are attacked by outside independent expenditure committees.

It’s possible that the current IE match won’t hold up to legal scrutiny under the Arizona decision. And already some of the city’s biggest downtown interests are threatening to sue to overturn the local ordinance. But there is much about the San Francisco law that will likely survive a court challenge.

Bob Stern, a campaign finance expert and president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, told us that he’s working on a new model law for cities like San Francisco. The Ethics Commission knew that when it voted July 11 to eliminate matching for IEs and to reduce the available pot of money.

Now the law comes to the Board of Supervisors, where eight votes are required to accept the Ethics Commission amendments. Good government advocates say the supervisors should do only what is clearly legally necessary: “The Ethics Commission should have used a scalpel, not a sledgehammer,” Oliver Luby, a former commission staffer, told us.

The November mayor’s race is a huge test for the city’s law; this will be the first time effective public financing will be in place for a citywide race, and the success of the ordinance will draw national attention. The supervisors should stop short of so badly amending it that it will lose all its teeth.

The board should hold public hearings and solicit input from local and national experts. The supervisors shouldn’t be intimidated by downtown lawsuits and consider only the most limited changes — after reviewing every possible alternative. 

 

The Chron says “Ed, Don’t Run”

8

Interesting, the politics of the media and the mayor’s race. While the Chron is typically the downtown/conservative paper, and some of those same folks are pushing Mayor Ed Lee to run for another term, the Chron’s big editorial July 17th made the case against Run Ed Run. Why? Well, mostly because the mayor promised:


But there is an even more important reason Ed Lee should not run: He said he would not. … He also said he took the job with a “clear, basic understanding” that he would run the city for the final year of Gavin Newsom’s term with “no distractions.”


The Chron clearly likes Ed Lee, and projects that as a candidate, he would lose the good will he’s created as mayor:


One of the reasons the atmosphere at City Hall this year has been so calm – and the results so impressive – it that the self-effacing occupant of Room 200 has gone out of his way to be collaborative, and the good feeling has been reciprocated.


That dynamic would change in an instant if Lee joined nine very ambitious politicians in the race for mayor. He would be widely regarded as the front-runner and thus would become the No. 1 target of the other nine.


His opponents would include two key members of the Board of Supervisors: President David Chiu and progressive stalwart John Avalos. The chances of anything meaningful emerging out of City Hall for the remainder of the year would plummet.


I’m not sure that’s true, not with ranked-choice voting. Nobody would want to anger Lee or his supporters; they’d all be going for the Number Two votes. (All except Leland Yee. Lee’s biggest backers in Chinatown despise Yee; it would be hard to keep that one civil.) And I don’t think Lee’s personality would suddenly change the minute he entered the race.


It would mean that David Chiu and Dennis Herrera would start to drop in the polls, since at least some of their core supporters would move to Lee. The race would be defined (with some reason) at Yee v. Lee.


But I don’t think it’s going to happen. As long as the mayoral candidates agree to let Lee have his job back (and Yee would be crazy not to make that promise — the thought of Mayor Yee AND Lee having no job might be the kicker that would push Lee into the race), I think the caretaker mayor would be just as happy to bow out. And the more times he says he won’t do it, and the more times players like the Chron urge him not to (and make it about civility and honoring his word) the harder it will be to jump in at the last minute.


(Before all the trolls attack me: I’m not telling Lee not to run. I’ve said all along: I hated the idea of a “caretaker” mayor, and I think Lee has been a great improvement over Gavin Newsom. I just think if he wants to run, he shouldn’t wait until the last minute. And the last minute is getting closer all the time.)


 

Waste Management sues SF over garbage contract

2

The already intense fight between Recology (formerly NorCal Waste) and Waste Management over SF’s next landfill contract just got more intense: today Waste Management of Alameda County announced that it is filing a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court to prevent the final award of a new long-term solid waste transportation agreement and landfill disposal contract to Recology on the grounds that awarding the contract would violate SF’s “competitive bidding ordinances.”

Now, Recology boosters will likely seek to frame this legal challenge as sour grapes over the city’s $11 million-a-year landfill contract. But WMAC’s suit represents a fundamental challenge to how SF’s $225-million-a-year solid waste stream is controlled: the suit requests a judicial declaration regarding the scope of the city’s 1932 Refuse Collection and Disposal Ordinance as it pertains to the transportation of residual wastes to a designated landfill outside city limits.


“The Department of the Environment [DoE] inappropriately and unlawfully expanded the scope of its 2009 ‘Request for Proposal for Landfill Disposal Capacity’ and, therefore, violated the City’s competitive procurement laws,” WMAC alleges.

WMAC has long held that DoE inappropriately issued a tentative contract award for both the transportation and disposal of solid waste to Recology on September 10, 2009, without soliciting any other transportation bids and in violation of longstanding City ordinances. Thanks to the 1932 ordinance, Recology has ended up with a monopoly over collecting and transporting waste through the streets of San Francisco. But that ordinance clearly does not apply to waste transported outside city limits, so folks have been asking if it would be greener to barge the city’s waste to nearby landfills. And they have been questioning whether ratepayers would benefit from lower rates if all of San Francisco’s garbage services, and not just the landfill contract, were put out to competitive bid.


Meanwhile, DoE, which sees $7 million of its own annual operating expenses for recycling, green building, and environmental justice programs and long-term planning for waste disposal incorporated into the garbage rates that Recology’s residential and business customers pay, ruled last year that WMAC’s objections were “without merit.”

So, now WMAC is taking its concerns to the Superior Court, asking that the court require DoE to scrap its tentative contract award to Recology for both waste disposal and waste transportation, and issue a new request for proposal to comply with existing competitive bidding requirements.

“WMAC is resolute in its commitment to providing the City and County of San Francisco with superior disposal services and responding to a Request for Proposal that is fairly administered,” WMAC’s Area President Barry Skolnick stated in a July 18 letter to the SF Board of Supervisors.

The move comes two days before the Board’s Budget and Finance subcommittee was scheduled to vote on approving a 10-year landfill disposal and facilitation agreement with Recology.

 The Board scheduled the vote last week, after it became clear that an initiative to require competitive bidding and franchise fees from waste management companies that seek to collect garbage in San Francisco, would not qualify in time for the November ballot. (Proponents of that initiative say they have enough signatures to qualify it for the June 2012 ballot. And they believe the question of whether candidates support competitive bidding on the city’s lucrative municipal solid waste collection, recycling, and disposal business continue to be a defining issue during the 2011 election.)


The landfill disposal and facilitation vote had already been delayed several months this year, following a Budget and Legislative analyst report that threw a curveball at the DoE’s plan by recommending that the Board consider submitting a proposition to the voters to a) repeal the city’s existing 1932 refuse ordinance such that future collection and transportation services be put to bid, and b) that future residential and commercial refuse collection rates be subject to Board approval. But so far, no supervisors have placed such a charter amendment on the November election.


The landfill disposal contract that the Budget and Finance sub-committee was to consider July 20 authorizes 5 million tons of solid waste disposal, or ten years, at Recology’s Ostrom Road landfill in Yuba County. It is worth in excess of $120 million, if the maximum of 5 million tons is reached, with all associated fees and costs to be passed onto, and  paid for by, refuse rate payers, not city funds. It allows for the Hays Road landfill in Vacaville to be used as a “back-up landfill.” And would allow Recology to pass on up to $10 million in rail hauler penalties, should the Ostrom Road landfill rail spur not be completed on time.


The facilitation agreement that the Board was also set to consider July 20, which governs how San Francisco’s waste is transported to its designated landfill, includes an additional rail transportation fee of $563 per rail container in future residential rate application increases that the Director of the Department of Public Works approves. (Unless there is an appeal, in which case it goes to the Rate Board, which is composed of the City Administrator (the post Ed Lee held before he was named mayor, and to which he wants to return,) the SF Public Utilities Commission director, and the Controller. And. in the event the cit

CCSF paid Recology $6.2 million to dispose of solid waste from city-owned facilities in FY 2010-11, and those costs are expected to increase by three percent to $6.4 million, according to the language of the ordinance that the Board’s budget and finance committee was set to consider this week.

As of press time, the Guardian was unable to reach anyone at City Hall to see if the city is seeking injunctive relief from WMAC’s filing, which provides a summary of San Francisco’s existing ordinances, a chronology of the events leading up to the DoE’s tentative award of the transportation and disposal contract to Recology and the subsequent bid protest filed by WMAC. {We’ll be sure to provide an update as the city’s response to the suit becomes available.)

“WMAC has exhausted all available and/or required administrative remedies,” WMAC states, noting that its filing also documents conflicting positions by DoE regarding the scope of the city’s Refuse Collection and Disposal Ordinance that San Francisco voters approved almost 80 years ago.

According to WMAC, DoE’s May 8 2008 Request for Qualifications stated that “the 1932 Refuse Collection and Disposal Ordinance …. does not address consolidating materials, processing for material recovery or transporting them to other facilities.”

According to WMAC, DoE re-stated this position in its Feb. 9, 2009 Request for Proposals.

“Yet in response to WMAC’s bid protest on (date) the Department stated there was no need to competitively bid transportation services outside the City limits since Recology was the only entity permitted under the 1932 ordinance to transport wastes from the in-city transfer station to an out-of-city landfill. “

As a result, WMAC is requesting the Court to rule on the scope of the 1932 Ordinance.

WMAC also notes that the Board of Supervisors designated the Altamont Landfill as the disposal site for all refuse collected within the City from November 1, 1998 through October 31, 2053, or until the City deposits 15 million tons. And that the 15 million ton has yet to be reached.

“There is ample time for the Department to issue a new RFP,” WMAC claims.

Will politicians get veto power over the voters?

14

Political interest groups of all stripes generally hold the “will of the voters” to be sacrosanct and not something that should be arbitrarily trifled with by mere politicians. Right or wrong, it’s commonly accepted that if voters do something, only they should be able to undo or modify it. And certainly, if that standard is going to be changed, someone ought to put forward a pretty damn good reason for doing so.

Which is why we and other City Hall watchers have been perplexed over these last few months as Sup. Scott Wiener has pushed a ballot measure that would give the Board of Supervisors the power to alter voter-approved measures after three years, which will go before the board tomorrow (Tues/19) for possible placement on the November ballot.

Aside for a general desire to clean up unspecified minor clutter from the city codes, Wiener hasn’t really offered much of a rationale for this big change, or said what laws he has in his sights. That’s caused groups on both the left and the right to view it with great suspicion, for good reason. It’s been amended many times to address the understandable panic about the bedrock principles that it could alter, changing its effective date and going back-and-forth on whether it should apply to voter-initiated measures, finally settling on restricting it to just measures introduced by the board or mayor and taking effect after January 2012.

But as indicated by comments Sup. Sean Elsbernd made at the Rules Committee hearing and with an editorial supporting Wiener’s measure in Friday’s San Francisco Chronicle (which is often a sign of funny business being cooked up downtown), at least some of the rationale is to overturn a trio of progressive fall ballot measures that they don’t like, even before voters have said whether they want them. And that’s not a good sign, no matter how you feel about those measures.

As much as we would all love to empower legislators to go after voter-approved measures that we don’t like – for example, our state would be in much better fiscal shape if the Democrat-controlled Legislature would tweak Prop. 13 – that’s just not how things are done in a democracy. And if undoing every significant progressive reform that voters have approved over the years was suddenly a possibility on any given Tuesday, Wiener will have seriously raised the stakes at City Hall.

With campaign finance laws under attack by conservative judges and rich corporations and individuals wielding ever more power over our elections, the prospect that decades worth of reforms would suddenly be on the table in each district supervisorial race is truly scary. And we’re going to open up this can of worms based simply on the small bureaucratic nips and tucks that Wiener is citing? That just doesn’t make sense. Yup, there’s definitely some funny business going on here.

Chris Cunnie running for sheriff?

65

It appears that the race for San Francisco sheriff is about to get more competitive: Chris Cunnie, the former Police Officers Association president, the former undersheriff and chief district attorney investigator is getting close to deciding to run, numerous sources tell me.


I haven’t been able to reach Cunnie directly, but he’s been calling around to local political types and talking about the race, and several people close to him say he’s about ready to make the jump.


Cunnie was widely expected to run when incument Mike Hennessey appointed him as undersheriff more than a year ago, but Cunnie left that job for personal reasons and appeared to have no interest in trying for the top position.


But he’s apparently changed his mind, and he would be the third candidate in the race and likely to get more traction than Paul Miyamoto, a captain in the Sheriff”s Department who has no prior political experience.


At this point, however, Hennessey has already endorsed Ross Mirkarimi, who is by any account the front-runner. He’s the only candidate with any electoral experience and he’ll have the progressives united behind his campaign. Cunnie’s time as the POA boss will hurt him on the left.


It’s not clear why Cunnie has decided to enter the race, but I think it’s safe to say that a lot of powerful people in this town are worried that Mirkarimi — a stalwart progressive who happens to have been very involved in law-enforcement issues — could wind up in a citywide office from which he might at some point seek to run for mayor. Cunnie would make it much safer for the more conservative types.


 

Repulsed by Recology’s tactics, Kopp strikes name from Adachi initiative

36

Who knew that a bunch of garbage could get a taxpayer watchdog like former supe/state senator/judge Quentin Kopp threatening not to endorse Public Defender Jeff Adachi’s pension reform initiative? But that’s what happened according to Kopp, who adds that he was “personally insulted’ by a signature gatherer outside the West Portal post office last week, after he struck his name from a petition he had signed in support of Public Defender Jeff Adachi’s pension reform measure.

Adachi, who has reportedly been paying up to $5 per signature, also came under fire this week from opponents of his measure, who are threatening legal action after an undercover video showed four signature gatherers for Adachi’s measure soliciting signatures while making misleading statements about the proposal.

But this misbehavior had not been made public when Kopp encountered a signature gatherer last Friday, who asked if he would sign the Adachi petition. “I wrote my name and has just started to print it, when he said, how do you feel about Recology?” recalled Kopp, who is backing a ballot initiative that would require competitive bidding and hundreds of millions of dollars in franchise fees from firms who seek to win San Francisco’s garbage collection and recycling contract.

As such, Kopp’s initiative threatens to up-end the terms of an 80-year old charter amendment that resulted in Recology (formerly Norcal Waste Systems) gaining a contractless monopoly on San Francisco’s $226 million-a-year garbage and recycling stream. 

When Kopp asked the signature gatherer, who identified himself as Tim McArdle, why he was asking about Recology, McArdle said he had another petition on hand, which referred to the allegedly satisfactory service that Recology is providing.

At which point, Kopp began to strike his name from Adachi’s $5-a pop petition. McArdle allegedly interrupted, saying, “No, that’s not the same petition as Recology’s.” And when Kopp kept scratching out his name, McArdle allegedly began swearing at him, even allegedly employing the time-honored F-word. “A woman walked by and was shocked,” Kopp said.(So far the Guardian has been unable to locate McArdle, but when we do, we’ll be sure to update this post.)


When McArdle grabbed back his clipboard, Kopp said he was able to see that on its backside was what Kopp describes as ‘Recology’s phony petition.”

So, why is Kopp so repulsed by Recology? According to Kopp. Recology recently signed up the city’s top signature-gathering firms to work on their petition thereby preventing Kopp and his associates from hiring these firms to collect signatures for his competitive bidding initiative. “And they are doing so from our rates, the money we pay, its legalized misappropriation of our money,” Kopp claimed

So far, it seems as if Recology’s strategy is paying off, at least in the short term. This week, sponsors of the competitive bidding initiative announced that they will turn in their signatures by December 11 to qualify their measure for the June 2012 ballot—and not their original target of November 2011.

Their decision followed less than three weeks of signature-gathering, a tight squeeze that occured, in part, because the City Attorney’s Office  took the full 15 days allowed by law to review the language of the Kopp initiative, which was first submitted June 3.

Even so, and despite an extensive Recology-financed media campaign that included push polls and network and cable TV ads against competitive bidding,  proponents and volunteers with Kopp’s campaign managed to gather the 7,168 signatures they needed to qualify his initiative by the city’s July 11 deadline for submitting petitions for the November election. But some signatures could prove invalid, hence the decision to delay the competitive bidding initiative until June.

And the Guardian learned today that the Board’s Budget and Finance Committee has scheduled a July 20 hearing on whether to award Recology the city’s $11 million-a-year landfill disposal contract, with the full Board set to vote on the issue on July 26 and August 2. In other words, the Board is rushing to make a decision on the landfill, which would further consolidate Recology’s monopoly on the city’s waste stream, before the Board’s summer recess.

The Guardian has also learned that the Budget and Finance Committee will hear a resolution July 20 concerning Recology’s existing agreement with the city over garbage. Rumors are swirling that this hearing will allow Sup. Ross Mirkarimi, who sits on the committee, is running for sheriff and has allegedly been meeting with Mayor Ed Lee and Recology president and CEO Mike Sangiacomo behind closed doors, to insert a clause to allow for the payment of a $4 million franchise fee. But insiders assure the Guardian that Mirkarimi has no such plans, although Mirkarimi himself could not be reached.


Either way, as Kopp points out, the alleged proposed $4 million fee would only amount to 2 percent of Recology’s annual revenue from San Francisco ratepayers. ‘That’s almost an insult,” Kopp said, noting that Oakland, whose population is 340,000, (42 percent of San Francisco’s daytime population) gets a franchise fee of $30 million.

Now, in a recent report to the Board’s LAFCO committee, Recology claimed it provides $18 million annually in “free services” to the city. But the report did not include an independent analysis of Recology’s estimates, and therefore these claims raised the hackles of Kopp, Kelly and other competitive bidding proponents.

Kopp predicts a $4 million franchise fee would allow city leaders who oppose his measure to claim that one of the two objectives of his proposed initiative have been addressed.

In an interview with the Guardian earlier this year, Mayor Ed Lee said he felt that Recology “has justified its privilege to be the permit holder in San Francisco because of the things that it has been willing to do with us.”

Kopp said Lee repeated this position in June, and that Board President David Chiu recently said that he is opposed to monopolies in concept, but felt that any effort to allow competitive bidding on garbage services would tear the city apart.

“Chiu spoke in such draconian terms I thought I was in Iraq or Afghanistan,” Kopp said.

But these latest developments have strengthened Kopp and Kelly’s resolve to push ahead with their effort to give local residents a chance to decide whether competitive bidding would be better for San Francisco rate payers. As they point out, such a vote doesn’t mean Recology would be ousted from the city because they stand an excellent chance of winning any competitive bid. But it could mean that Recology is ousted from its current cost-plus arrangement with the city that allows them to make an estimated 10-20 percent profit.

And whatever happens, the upcoming battle threatens to shed light on Recology’s business model, which is based on vertical expansion into other counties and states, and the knowledge that, unlike the competitive bids it submits everywhere else in California, it has a guaranteed annual revenue of $225 million in San Francisco. In its 1996 filings with the Securities Exchange Commission, NorCal Waste and its 45 subsidiaries (now known as Recology) reported that San Francisco accounts for 50 percent of its annual revenue. And while those public filings are 15 years old, it’s clear Recology continues to rely on San Francisco for a large and guaranteed chunk of its income.

Or as one insider put it, “When you have a cost-plus contract, you can start buying things—like the Pier 96 development, and the recycling facility. And you can move profits to a different part of the company. You’re not competitively bidding the composting. And you can shift your profits out of San Francisco. And with a cost-plus contract, you put everything in the rates. For instance, the city says it wants composting. Ok, here’s the cost, here’s the bill. But you take the profit from the composting and invest it in San Jose, or San Bernardino, and use it to advance your other objectives, like buying two large landfills in Nevada and financing political campaigns.”

Meanwhile, Kopp says he plans to take Adachi to task for hiring the same signature gathering firm that is trying to undermine his petition.


“And I’m not planning to sign his petition now, and I might not endorse it,” Kopp said.
 




 

Where does Gavin Newsom vote?

23

Now that it’s pretty clear Gavin Newsom no longer has a residence in San Francisco, when is he going to change his voter registration? According to the San Francisco Department of Elections, there’s no statutory deadline; he can stay registered in San Francisco as long as he wants.

But he can’t vote here if he doesn’t live here — which means that if he wants to vote in the November election, he’s going to have to either (a) rent an apartment or buy another house in San Francisco that he can claim is his primary residence or (b) re-register as a resident of Marin County. As it is now, with no fixed place of abode in this city, he can’t come back and vote for the next mayor or sheriff or vote against the measure to change Care Not Cash. Because that would be voter fraud. And the lieutenant governor of California would never want to break the law.

Daly blasts HuffPo SF’s choice of bloggers

30

In an open letter to Huffington Post former Sup. Chris Daly lays out why he thinks former Sup. Michela Alioto-Pier, mayoral candidate Joanna Rees and (perhaps not so interim) Mayor Ed Lee aren’t the best of choices to blog about San Francisco politics.

“Thank you for asking me to write for Huffington Post San Francisco,” Daly wrote. “However, I feel as if I must register a significant level of disappointment in who you rolled out today as your featured bloggers from the world of SF politics. It seems as if am the only one from San Francisco’s significant progressive elected political community.”

“Featuring Michela Alioto-Pier on the pages of Huffington Post only gives additional ammunition to those on the left who have become increasingly critical of Huffington Post since AOL’s acquisition,” Daly continued. “Alioto-Pier may seem kind of ‘liberal’ by skewed national standards, but she is decidedly conservative in San Francisco– opposing just about every progressive initiative in the last decade, from protecting rent control to checking reckless development to mitigating the negative influence of special interest money in elections. As an unabashed progressive, I was embarrassed to serve on the same Board as her and am now embarrassed to appear on the same web page with her bashing progressive homeless policy. Simply put, San Francisco’s very own Michele Bachmann now writes for the Huffington Post!”

Next, Daly laid into mayoral candidate Joanna Rees, Sup. Malia Cohen and Mayor Lee. “Rees, Cohen, and Lee may not have quite the same conservative credentials, but Lee and Cohen just green-lighted the largest demolition of rent controlled housing in SF history,” Daly observed. “So it probably shouldn’t surprise anyone that Ed Lee’s initial HuffPo blog is generally based on the Scott Walker political philosophy of blaming unions for current economic/budget woes, when the rest of us know that large corporations, financial institutions, and government deregulators are really to blame. While trying to make public sector workers pay to balance our budget, Lee has left Corporate San Francisco off the hook, with no progressive taxation proposal even on the table for consideration. Meanwhile, Rees can hardly veil her neo-liberal agenda for San Francisco government.”

Daly concluded by suggesting that HuffPo needs to  work harder to incorporate more truly progressive political voices. “If not, you’ll just become a rehash of SFGate, without their more significant rooting in our City,” he warns.

But he didn’t overtly mention HuffPo’s failure to pay its bloggers—a sore point that got a bunch of unpaid bloggers slapping HuffPo and aol.com with a $105 million class action suit earlier this year, after Arianna Huffington sold her website to aol.com for $315 million.

Asked if HuffPo was paying him for his posts, Daly replied, “Nope, I can’t recall ever getting paid for my writing.”

He also noted that Board President David Chiu, mayoral candidate and Sup. John Avalos and Rep. Nancy Pelosi have been invited to write for the online publication, though they don’t have any blog posts up yet. So stay tuned. 

In an emailed reply to Daly, HuffPo SF editor Carly Schwartz claimed that she “completely understands” the former bad-boy-on-the-Board’s concerns.

“But Huffington Post’s mission is to go ‘beyond left and right,’ and as such, we wanted to reflect a wide array of political philosophies in our blogger lineup. (As someone who identifies as a progressive personally, I was quite pleased to feature you second from the top!),” Schwartz wrote. “You’ll notice our national bloggers come from across the spectrum as well — we have everyone from Howard Dean to Andrew Breitbart. Our goal is to bring the voices of the city to life, whether they be progressive, conservative, controversial, or just middle of the road — we want to get our residents talking. Which we have successfully done, given your response!”

“You’ll also notice we have more featured bloggers to roll out from the political community in the coming days, from Dennis Herrera to John Avalos to David Chiu to Nancy Pelosi…we simply didn’t have room for everyone on our launch day,” Schwartz continued (potentially upsetting the mayoral candidate applecart with her decision to feature Daly before folks who are currently in office AND running for office this fall).

“As someone who very much identifies with the progressive community, I would be so thrilled if you could suggest some more progressive political personalities for our page,” Schwartz concluded. Oh, and she suggested that Daly fold his concerns into his next blog post…

Guardian forum: Tenants, housing and land use

18

Should be a great forum July 14. We’ve got a panel on tenants, housing and land-use issues, some of the key stuff for the future of the city. Great group of speakers — and, as always, we’ll be looking for ideas and input from the audience. This isn’t a mayoral debate (that comes later); it’s a chance for progressives to talk about the issues that the next mayor needs to address and come up with a platform.

Speakers:

FEATURING:
Sara Shortt, Housing Rights Committee
Ted Gullickson, SF Tenants Union
Nick Pagoulatos, Dolores St Community Services
Sue Hestor, Land Use Attorney

We may have some more suprise guests, too.

Lots of time for discussion afterward.

It’s at 6 pm (until 8 pm) at the City College Mission Campus, 1125 Valencia. More details here. See you there.

 

 

Parks Inc.

6

steve@sfbg.com

Should the city be trying to make money off of its parks, recreation centers, and other facilities operated by the Recreation and Park Department? That’s the question at the center of several big controversies in recent years, as well as a fall ballot measure and an effort to elevate revenue generation into an official long-term strategy for the department.

So far, the revenue-generating initiatives by RPD General Manager Phil Ginsburg and former Mayor Gavin Newsom have been done on an ad hoc basis — such as permitting vendors in Dolores Park, charging visitors to Strybing Arboretum, and leasing out recreation centers — but an update of the Recreation and Open Space Element (ROSE) of the General Plan seeks to make it official city policy.

The last of six objectives in the plan, which will be heard by the Planning Commission Aug. 4, is “secure long-term resources and management for open space acquisition, operations, and maintenance,” a goal that includes three policies: develop long-term funding mechanisms (mostly through new fees and taxes); partner with other public agencies and nonprofits to manage resources; and, most controversially, “pursue public-private partnerships to generate new operating revenues for open spaces.”

The plan likens that last policy to the city’s deal with Clear Channel to maintain Muni bus stops with funding from advertising revenue, saying that “similar strategies could apply to parks.” It cites the Portland Parks Foundation as a model for letting Nike and Columbia Sportswear maintain facilities and mark them with their corporate logos, and said businesses such as bike rental shops, cafes, and coffee kiosks can “serve to activate an open space,” a phrase it uses repeatedly.

“The city should seek out new opportunities, including corporate sponsorships where appropriate, and where such sponsorship is in keeping with the mission of the open space itself,” the document says.

Yet that approach is anathema to how many San Franciscans see their parks and open spaces — as vital public assets that should be maintained with general tax revenue rather than being dependent on volunteers and wealthy donors, subject to entry fees, or leased to private organizations.

That basic philosophical divide over how the city’s parks and recreational facilities are managed has animated a series of conflicts in recent years that have soured many people on the RPD. They include the mass firing of rec directors and leasing out of rec centers, the scandal-tinged process of selecting a new Stow Lake Boathouse vendor, new vending contracts for Dolores Park, the eviction of the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Center recycling facility, plans to develop western Golden Gate Park and other spots, the conversion by the private City Fields Foundation of many soccer fields to artificial turf, and the imposition of entry fees at the arboretum.

Activists involved in those seemingly unrelated battles united into a group called Take Back Our Parks, recognizing that “it’s all the same problem: the monetization of the park system,” says member John Rizzo, a Sierra Club activist and elected City College trustee. “It’s this Republican idea that the parks should pay for themselves.”

And now, with the help of the four most progressive members of the Board of Supervisors, the group is putting the issue before voters and trying to stop what it calls the auctioning off of the city’s most valuable public assets to the highest bidders.

The Parks for the Public initiative — which was written by the group and placed on the ballot by Sups. John Avalos, David Campos, Eric Mar, and Ross Mirkarimi — is intended to “ensure equal public access to parks and recreation facilities and prevent privatization of our public parks and facilities,” as the measure states. It would prevent the department from entering into any new leases or creating new entry fees for parks and other facilities.

Even its promoters call it a small first step that doesn’t get into controversies such as permitting more vending in the parks, including placing a taco truck in Dolores Park and the aborted attempt to allow a Blue Bottle Coffee concession there. But it does address the central strategy Newsom and his former chief of staff, Ginsburg, have been using to address the dwindling RPD budget, which was slashed by 7 percent last year.

“What a lot of us think the Recreation and Parks Department is actually doing is relinquishing the maintenance of park facilities to private entities,” says Denis Mosgofian, who founded the group following his battles with RPD over the closures and leases rec centers. “They’re actually dismantling much of what the public has created.”

He notes that San Francisco voters have approved $371 million in bonds over the last 20 years to improve parks and recreation centers, only to have their operations defunded and control of many of them simply turned over to private organizations that often limit the public’s ability to use them.

By Mosgofian’s calculation, at least 14 of the city’s 47 clubhouses and recreation centers have been leased out and another 11 have been made available for leases, often for $90 per hour, which is more than most community groups can afford. And he says 166 recreation directors and support staffers have been laid off in the last two years, offset by the hiring of at least nine property management positions to handle the leases.

Often, he said, the leases don’t even make fiscal sense, with some facilities being leased for less money than the city is spending to service the debt used to refurbish them. Other lease arrangements raised economic justice concerns, such as when RPD evicted a 38-year-old City College preschool program from the Laurel Hill Clubhouse to lease it to Language in Action, a company that does language immersion programs for preschoolers.

“Without telling anyone, they arranged to have a private, high-end preschool go in,” Rizzo said, noting that its annual tuition of around $12,000 is too expensive for most city residents and that the program even fenced off part of the playground for its private use, all for a monthly lease of less than $1,500. “They don’t talk to the neighbors who are affected or the users of the park … We’re paying for it and then we don’t have access to it.”

They also refused to answer our questions. Neither Ginsburg nor Recreation and Park Commission President Mark Buell responded to Guardian messages. Department spokesperson Connie Chan responded by e-mail and asked us to submit a list of questions, which department officials still hadn’t answered at Guardian press time. But it does appear that the approach has at least the tacit backing of Mayor Ed Lee.

“In order to increase its financial sustainability in the face of ongoing General Fund reductions, the Recreation and Parks Department continues to focus on maximizing its earned revenue. Its efforts include capitalizing on the value of the department’s property and concessions by entering into new leases and developing new park amenities, pursuing philanthropy, and searching for sponsorships and development opportunities,” reads Mayor Lee’s proposed budget for RPD, which includes a chart entitled “Department Generated Revenue” that shows it steadily increasing from about $35 million in 2005-06 to about $45 million in 2011-12.

And that policy approach would get a big boost if it gets written into the city’s General Plan, which could happen later this year.

Land use attorney Sue Hestor has been fighting projects that have disproportionately favored the wealthy for decades, often using the city’s General Plan, a state-mandated document that lays out official city goals and policies. She also is concerned that the ROSE is quietly being developed to “run interference for Rec-Park to do anything they want to.”

“By getting policies into the General Plan that are a rationalization of privatization, it backs up what Rec-Park is doing,” Hestor said, noting how much influence Ginsburg and his allies have clearly exerted over the Planning Department document. “It’s effectively a Rec-Park plan.”

Sue Exeline, the lead planner on ROSE, said the process was launched in November 2007 by an Open Space Task Force created by Newsom, and that the Planning Department, Neighborhood Parks Council, and speakers at community meetings have all influenced its development. Yet she conceded that RPD was “a big part of the process.”

When we asked about the revenue-generating policies, where they came from, and why they were presented in such laudatory fashion without noting the controversy that underlies them, Exeline said simply: “It will continue to be vetted.” And when we continued to push for answers, she tried to say the conversation was off-the-record, referred us to RPD or Planning Director John Rahaim, and hung up the phone.

The rationale for bringing in private sources of revenue: it’s the only way to maintain RPD resources during these tight budget times. A July 5 San Francisco Examiner editorial that praised these “revenue-generating business partnerships” and lambasted the ballot measure and its proponents was titled “Purists want Rec and Park to pull cash off trees.”

But critics say the department could be putting more energy into a tax measure, impact fees, or other general revenue sources rather than simply turning toward privatization options.

“We need to see revenue, but we also need to stop the knee-jerk acceptance of every corporate hand that offers anything,” Mosgofian said. “Our political leadership believes you need to genuflect before wealth.”

And they say that their supporters cover the entire ideological spectrum.

“We’re getting wide support, everywhere from conservative neighborhoods to progressive neighborhoods. It’s not a left-right issue, it’s about fairness and equity,” Rizzo said.

In sponsoring the Parks for the People initiative and unsuccessfully trying to end the arboretum fees (it failed on a 5-6 vote at the Board of Supervisors, with President David Chiu the swing vote), John Avalos is the one major mayoral candidate that is raising concerns about the RPD schemes.

“Our parks are our public commons. They are public assets that should be paid for with tax dollars,” Avalos told us. He called the idea of allowing advertising and corporate sponsorships into the parks, “a real breach from what the public expects from parks and open space.”

When asked whether, if he’s elected mayor, he would continue the policies and let Ginsburg continue to run RPD, Avalos said, “Probably not. I think we need to make a lot of changes in the department. They should be given better support in the General Fund so we don’t have to make these kinds of choices.”

ROSE will be the subject of informational hearings before the Planning Commission on Aug. 4 and Sept. 15, with an adoption hearing scheduled for Oct. 13. Each hearing begins at noon in Room 400, City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Dr., San Francisco.

 

The Fillmore’s clip, cut, and snip: Reggie Pettus of New Chicago Barbershop No. 3 speaks

0

35 years ago, if you were to step through the doors of New Chicago Barbershop No. 3 you’d probably find Reginald “Reggie” Pettus standing behind his classic barber’s chair. Today, Pettus can still be found in the shop on Fillmore Street, an area that has seen seismic changes in its community. Pettus and the shop are a part of the Fillmore’s African American past, but he wants people to know that the shop is part of the present, too.

Born in Mobile, Alabama, the now seventy-one year old Pettus came to the Fillmore District in 1958, when he enrolled at City College of San Francisco. “Half of my family was in Mobile, Alabama, the other half was in San Francisco, so when I graduated from high school I wanted to come out here to go to school, so that’s what I did,” said Pettus in a Guardian interview one summer afternoon at his shop.

Known for its doo-wop beginnings and its present day rhythmic hot spots, the Fillmore District is the place to be when it comes to absorbing San Francisco’s jazz culture. Home to the historic Fillmore theater, and popular jazz club Yoshi’s San Francisco, the Fillmore District brings in people of all ages and colors to enjoy its good times. But if you’re looking to get a handle on some parts of Fillmore history, you won’t find it in the clubs. 

1551 Fillmore: The place to be for a beard trim, haircut, and some neighborhood history

Pettus has been working in The New Chicago Barbershop No. 3, a business originally opened on Ellis Street by his uncle James “Mack” McMillan in 1968, for thirty five years. Another branch (Chicago Barbershop No. 2), is located on Divisadero Street.

Pettus said that he’s been a professional barber for thirty seven years, but has been cutting hair since he was a young adult, including the time when he served in the Air Force from 1960 to 1964. “I’ve always been [a barber]. When I was in high school I cut hair, when I was in the service I cut hair. So when I got out of the service and came to California, my uncle, he had a barbershop so I went to school and became a barber, a legal barber that is.”

This year marks the forty-forth year of business for the barbershop, a success that Pettus credits to the staff’s welcoming customer service. “We open on time; we treat all the customers the same way, whether they’re Willie Brown or somebody that has come off the street. The way we treat people. That’s why we’re still here.”

Nevertheless, the barbershop has faced tougher times as the years have progressed. Pettus described the current business flow to be “fair”. “It’s holding on, put it that way.” He was adamant about the reasons for the ongoing decrease in clientele for the shop. He said that during the mid ‘70s, redevelopment came in and tore down most of the buildings around the Fillmore (the neighborhood had been slated for redevelopment since 1948 by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and by 1956, 60 blocks were included in this designated blighted area). As a result, most of the middle-class African American population had moved out of the Fillmore by the ’70s, resulting in a drop in business for the barbershop. “When they moved down, our business moved down,” said Pettus.

After the redevelopment, Pettus said that the makeup of the neighborhood had shifted. “Way back in the day it used to be mostly Afro Americans, Italians, and Asians. Now, after they tore all the buildings, then brought everything back, you got quite a few Koreans and Caucasians in comparison to Afro Americans.” 

“We’re the only Afro Americans on this block,” Pettus said. He takes pride in the fact that the shop has stuck around, but at the same time Pettus knows that it’s evidence of the lack of representation of African American businesses in the Fillmore District.

When asked what he’d change if he could tackle one aspect of the Fillmore’s future, Pettus responded “I would put more emphasis on having more Afro American people come back into the area, and let them know that we are still here too.”

Through the hardships that the New Chicago Barbershop No. 3 has faced, it has always been able to fall back on what it does best — cut hair. One of Pettus’s fonder memories was when Willie Brown came to the shop during his time as mayor. Over the years the shop has served as barbers to local stars, visiting celebrities – and the everyday residents of the Fillmore.

As many of the shop’s neighbors come and go, the New Chicago Barbershop No. 3 carries on as the Fillmore District’s spot for a cut, clip, or snip. But its owner is humble about its importance in the neighborhood. When asked about what separates the barbershop from other businesses on Fillmore Street, Pettus jokingly answered, “We’ve been here the longest.” 

Now retired, Pettus, who continues to live in the Fillmore,  and still makes frequent stops to the shop on 1551 Fillmore Street. 

Said Pettus, “I still do the same thing; I still deal with mostly the same people, and I enjoy it, I enjoy it.”

 

New Chicago Barbershop No. 3

1551 Fillmore, SF

(415) 563-9793

www.newchicagobarbershop.net

 

During America’s Cup, clean-air program takes a step backward

A $5 million clean-air program along the San Francisco waterfront will be temporarily halted to accommodate the America’s Cup, prompting criticism from environmental advocates.

In October of 2010, representatives from the Port of San Francisco joined former Mayor Gavin Newsom and Princess Cruises to unveil a shoreside power installation at San Francisco’s Pier 27 for cruise ships transporting tourists to the city. The fourth system of its kind ever installed, the shoreside power hookup was touted as a way to improve local air quality by supplying passenger vessels with municipal power, making it unecessary for ships to run large diesel generators while at dock.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provided $1 million to finance the emissions-reduction project. Additional financing came from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and Port capital funds.

Modern cruise ships use between 6 and 12 megawatts of power. The Port estimated that 19.7 tons of carbon dioxide would be reduced for every 10-hour ship call, while harmful air pollutants such as particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides would be cleared while diesel generators were shut down. The shoreside power was fed by San Francisco’s gravity-based Hetch Hetchy Water System, a relatively green energy source.

The environmental gains from shoreside power could be temporarily lost, however, when America’s Cup racing teams take over Pier 27 in 2012 and 2013 during the high-profile sailing events.

“With just one stroke of a pen, it’s gone,” said Teri Shore, program director at the Turtle Island Restoration Network (TIRN), based in Marin County. While the shoreside power hookup is disabled, “The ships will be coming in and parking, and running their diesel engines” at other waterfront piers.

The Port had already anticipated temporarily halting the shoreside power for a year during construction of a Pier 27 cruise terminal, Brad Benson of the Port of San Francisco told the Guardian. “Assuming there were no America’s Cup, it would already not be in operation … for approximately one year,” he explained. After a year of construction that will mark the first phase of the cruise terminal project, the America’s Cup will move onto the site, he said. “As a result of the America’s Cup, shoreside power is not going to be available for one year.”

By 2014, when cruise ships will be required by state law to have the ability to plug in at the shore rather than run polluting generators, the shoreside power will be in operation again, Benson added. The America’s Cup Event Authority — the primary race organizing team — has agreed to finance a $2 million relocation cost.

Shore, who is working with a coalition of environmental advocates that’s closely watching America’s Cup plans, said she hopes to see the city find some way to offset the impacts from the lost air-quality improvements. As long as ships’ generators are running, “there’s an exposure level,” she pointed out.

Benson said the port is starting to look at how it could offset the impacts, saying there might be ways of reducing carbon outputs during the event in order to make up for the lost emissions reductions. “I can’t tell you whether we could achieve the same level of emissions reductions that shoreside power would provide,” he said. “It’s very effective.”

On Monday, July 11, the city is expected to release a draft environmental impact review for the America’s Cup project.

Is Ed Reiskin the new MTA chief?

1

It sure looks like it. And he could be the new Muni boss by the end of the week.


Which is not necessarily a bad thing — Reiskin’s well liked around City Hall, the bicyclists and alternative transport people think he’s a decent choice and he’s certainly run a big, complex city agency. But he’s never run a big transit agency — and that’s a very different experience from managing the Department of Public Works.


Sup. John Avalos, who is running for mayor, told me he thinks the MTA ought to take its time and look around a bit. “Nothing against Reiskin, but I think it’s important we make the most thorough effort to find the best person to fun this critical city department,” he said.


But from what I hear, Reiskin’s close to a lock. I just hope the MTA knows better than to offer him one of those five-eyar contracts with a rich buy-out provision. Look how well that worked last time.