Tom Ammiano

Will SF lose a senate seat?

Zelda Bronstein
-
7
Will SF lose a senate seat?

The new draft lines for state Assembly and Senate seats are out, and it’s not good news for San Francisco. It’s particularly bad news for Sen. Mark Leno, who could potentially be reapportioned out of a seat.


It’s a tricky process, but here’s how I understand it will work. The draft lines now, which put Leno and Sen. Leland Yee in the same seat (covering all of San Francisco and some of San Mateo County, down to Colma), will be updated June 9th. At some point a few weeks later, the redistricting commission will also decide whether to give the San Francisco seat (just one, we used to have two) an even or an odd number. If it’s an even number, it’s Yee’s seat — and as of Jan. 1, 2013, Leno is out of office for two years, at which point he could run again for the new seat.


Of course, if it’s an odd number, then it’s Leno’s seat, and Yee would finish his term representing his old seat — assuming he’s not elected mayor, which would create a vacancy in a seat that might only exist for a year.


More important in the long run than the individuals is the harsh reality that this will be a more conservative seat (tougher, say, for Tom Ammiano to win). The Marin County seat will be more conservative, too. And San Francisco will have only one state senator.


Ammiano still has an Assembly seat, but it includes more of the Peninsula.


The whole process is going to turn the state Legislature more conservative. We’ll likely get more Republicans in a state that has an overwhelming Democratic majority. And it’s not as if the new maps are free of what used to be called gerrymandering: “When voters get a look at the new districts, they’ll see as much modern art as Phil Burton ever created,” Leno said.


 


 


 

Avalos introduces SF-San Mateo Local Hire agreement

Mary Magee
-
7
Avalos introduces SF-San Mateo Local Hire agreement

Last year, when Sup. John Avalos introduced and eventually won passage of the city’s landmark local hiring ordinance, a number of battles broke out, as folks in neighboring municipalities began fretting that the new law could shut them out of construction jobs in San Francisco. Avalos worked hard to make sure their concerns were addressed, but he continued to encounter resistance from San Mateo County.
And in February Assemblymember Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) who is facing term limits and reapportionment, introduced a bill in Sacramento that was intended to limit the reach of the Avalos legislation, which aimed to put more San Francisco residents to work on city-funded construction projects.
Hill’s legislation, AB 356, sought to prohibit the use of state money on local-hire projects and prevent Avalos’ legislation from being applied to the city’s projects in counties within 70 miles of San Francisco, including upgrades to the Hetch Hetchy water system on the Peninsula.
“San Francisco can use its own money any way it wants,” Hill said at the time, “Taxpayers from San Mateo, Ventura, Solano and other California counties shouldn’t have to pay for the increased construction costs that will result from San Francisco’s local-hire ordinance.”
Plus, he said the city should be thinking regionally, not hyper-local.
But, as Avalos repeatedly pointed out, his local hire law doesn’t apply to projects funded with state money, and it only mandates 20 percent local hire this year, gradually increasing to 50 percent local hire over the next seven years.
At the time, the Guardian predicted that Hill’s bill would “probably go down the crapper because the San Francisco legislators, who have a fair amount of clout up in Sacramento these days, aren’t going to support it. Assemblymember Tom Ammiano and state Sens. Mark Leno and Leland Yee have all signed a letter supporting the city’s local hire law.”
And sure enough, after the mayors of San Francisco and Los Angeles, not to mention organizations from San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles and San Diego, and the State Building Trades Council made their views known, Assemblymember Charles Calderon requested June 3 that Hill’s legislation by ordered to the inactive file.
Local supporters of Avalos’ legislation say Hill’s bill got pulled because there was no chance in hell that it would ever get out of the State Assembly.
But Hill’s office claims it was because San Francisco and San Mateo reached a deal last week, and that this outcome was Hill’s intention all along.
“What happened was that the Assemblymember Jerry Hill put together a bill and his intention was to get his constituents in San Mateo a memorandum of understanding with San Francisco—and that MOU was signed last Friday (June 3) by San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and San Mateo County Board President Carole Groom,” Hill’s legislative aide Aurelio Rojos told the Guardian.
And according to a statement that Hill’s office released June 3, Hill welcomed the signing of a reciprocity agreement that “ends a dispute between the counties of San Mateo and San Francisco by creating a level playing field for San Mateo County residents working on construction  projects in the county funded by San Francisco.”
Hill’s press release claims the MOU was “forged following weeks of negotiations that began in February after Hill introduced legislation that would have limited San Francisco’s recently enacted local hire ordinance to its geographic boundaries. The agreement allows contractors working on San Francisco public works projects located in San Mateo County to hire an equal number of workers from the two counties.  As a result of the agreement, Hill has agreed not to move forward with his legislation, Assembly Bill 356.”
 “San Mateo County construction workers will no longer be penalized by San Francisco’s local hire ordinance as a result of the agreement,” Hill said.  “I applaud Mayor Lee and Supervisor Groom for creating a level playing field that will enable San Mateo residents to work on construction projects within their county.”
 Hill claims that  with San Francisco scheduled to award $27 billion in public contracts during the next decade, the city’s local hire  provision would have impacted the ability of San Mateo County residents to work on construction projects in their county, including the San Francisco International Airport, the jail in San Bruno, Hetch Hetchy waterworks and other facilities on the Peninsula.”
Either way, today, Avalos, who has long maintained that Hill either didn’t understand his legislation or was refusing to understand the legislation, and Mayor Ed Lee are introducing a resolution, “approving a local hiring agreement between San Francisco and San Mateo County,” and reinforcing equal opportunity guaranteed under San Francisco’s Local Hire Policy and community-labor partnerships
Avalos, who is running for mayor, apparently led the negotiations alongside Lee to forge the agreement which allows contractors performing San Francisco public works projects in San Mateo County to equally draw workers from San Francisco and San Mateo to meet required staffing levels under the local hiring ordinance.
The agreement covers San Francisco-funded projects located in San Mateo County, including the San Francisco airport.  Under the agreement, San Mateo workers are included by the local hiring requirement for projects  in San Mateo County, and will be able to fill up to half of the local hiring requirement.
“This is a win-win for workers in San Francisco and San Mateo. Whatever we can do to support job creation in the Bay Area region during this very long recession is going to be very meaningful to the families that are struggling to stay in this area,” Avalos said.
“The achievement in securing this resolution is really a testament to the strength of communities united,” said Brightline executive director Joshua Arce. “Sup. Avalos always intended that his legislation would expand, in terms of opportunities on city-funded projects, outside San Francisco. On San Francisco-funded work in San Mateo, San Francisco and San Mateo workers will be working side by side, taking advantage of the local and regional aspects of the legislation.”
Or as Avalos put it,  “The local hiring ordinance is about making sure we create job opportunities in San Francisco when the city invests taxpayer dollars in construction projects. We included the flexibility to craft reciprocal agreements with other cities and counties, and that’s exactly what was accomplished in the deal that was reached between San Francisco and San Mateo.”

Sacramento deadline: Some key bills

Zelda Bronstein
-
0
Sacramento deadline: Some key bills

A bunch of key bills come up in the state Legislature this week — and some of them are going to be very close. Assemblymember Tom Ammiano is pushing hard to get AB 1017, which would eliminate mandatory felony charges for pot cultivation, throught the Assembly floor (in fact, when I called his press secretary, Quintin Mecke, today (June 1) at about 11 a.m., Ammiano was on the floor making his 1017 pitch.) Ammiano also has a key tenant bill, AB 265, which would allow tenants who are a few days late with the rent to avoid eviction.


Dean Preston, executive director of Tenants Together, has a great rundown on the major tenant bills here. Sen. Mark Leno’s bill, SB 184, which is critical to protecting the rights of cities to demand affordable housing as part of a development deal, is going to be very close. So is Assemblymember Mike Feuer’s AB 934 — a nobrainer that simply clarifies tenant protections that have been threatened by recent court cases. (Preston told me that San Francisco Assemblymember Fiona Ma is not among the bill’s supporters at this point; you can call her office at  557-2312 and let her know you want her to vote for it.)


Sen. Leland Yee has gotten two bills through, one that would allow pharmacies to sell sterile syringes without a prescription and one that mandates more sunshine in the courts. His bill forcing the University of California to open up its foundation records will almost certainly clear the Senate now that UC had dropped its opposition. Tougher going, I expect, for SB 9, which would end life without parole sentences for juveniles.


Leno’s bill legalizing infusion drinks at bars cleared the Senate. He’s also pushing a Community Choice Aggregation bill, SB 790, and  the long-awaited, much-fought-over cell phone, SB 932, which would require modest disclosure of cell-phone radiation.


The difference between this session and the last one is that a lot of these bills might actually get the governor’s signature.

Editor’s Notes

Jesse Hawthorne Ficks
-
7
Editor’s Notes

tredmond@sfbg.com

Three weeks before the June 25-26 Pride Weekend — which is the unofficial opening of the official fall mayoral race — there are two front-runners: state Sen. Leland Yee and Sup. John Avalos.

I’m not saying either is going to win. Things change quickly in this town. We don’t even know for sure if the incumbent, Ed Lee, is going to be in the final scrum.

But here’s what we do know: Yee and Avalos — right now, today — are doing the things they need to do to emerge from a crowded pack. And the others are either hanging back or flailing around.

Avalos had more than 400 people at his kickoff. State Assemblymember Tom Ammiano was there to endorse him. He’s got window signs all over the east side of town. He’s showing momentum, energy; he’s on track to solidify the progressive base and start moving west. He has agreed to cosponsor the mayor’s pension reform plan (but only if SEIU Local 1021 gets the amendments the union wants).

Yee has figured out a very smart strategy: He realizes that he’s already got name recognition and a west-side base, that he’s never going to get the support of the Chinatown establishment (powerbroker Rose Pak hates him), and that he’s one of at least five candidates fighting over the center. So he’s trying to grab a share of the left.

Yee’s people were thrilled that he and Avalos got the Sierra Club. The more groups that endorse the two together (in any order), the more Yee becomes associated with the progressive standard-bearer. And the more second-place votes he gets on the left. (Don’t kid yourself; this race may well come down to who gets second-place votes on the left.)

And Sup. David Chiu just gave Yee a great big gift. Chiu defied every single tenant group in town and became the swing vote in favor of the Parkmerced project. Now the tenants are pissed — and you know Yee is going to try to take advantage of it.

The frustrating part of that scenario is that Yee was never a good tenant vote when he was a supervisor. That’s his Achilles’ heel on the left — but it’s old history, and the anger at Chiu is here today.

Would Chiu be a better mayor for tenants than Yee? Quite possibly. Is any tenant group thinking that right now? No.

Chiu’s in a tricky spot. He’s trying to be the centrist progressive — and that’s a hard thing to sell to either the center (where he’s one of five candidates) or the left (where Yee is edging him out in cozying up to Avalos).

City Attorney Dennis Herrera hasn’t recovered from the political consultant lobbying mess (not a new story, he’s hardly the only, or even remotely, the worst offender, but damn, it makes him look bad). Former Sup. Bevan Dufty’s doing great at the candidate forums but doesn’t have a breakout move. Assessor Phil Ting is awfully quiet.

It’s only June. But it won’t be “only” anything much longer.

Ammiano’s TRUST Act passes the Assembly

Mary Magee
-
10
Ammiano’s TRUST Act passes the Assembly

Tom Ammiano’s TRUST Act (AB 1081) passed the California Assembly in a 47-26 vote. It now heads to the Senate for approval. Ammiano says his bill “seeks to repair the damaging impacts of the Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agency’s “Secure” Communities program.”  The feds’ Secure-Communities program, in which fingerprints taken in local jails are automatically shared with immigration enforcement officials, has increasingly been accused of undermining public safety without transparency or local oversight. Today’s vote came a year after San Francisco Sheriff Mike Hennessey blew the whistle on ICE’s plan to silently activate S-Comm in San Francisco. And it followed on the heels of a series of damaging revelations about how S-Comm has mostly resulted in the deportation of non-violent immigrants, and has led to complaints that local municipalities received confusing information about their participation options.


Following a request from Congressmember Zoe Lofgren and Sen. Robert Menendez, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of the Inspector General recently announced it will investigate questions about S-Comm’s success in meeting its stated criminal targets, and look into charges that misinformation was provided to states and localities about their ability to opt out. Earlier this month, llinois Gov. Pat Quinn tried to cancel his state’s participation in the program and the Congressional Hispanic Committee asked Obama to put a moratorium on the program.  



 “S-Comm is a farce,” Assemblymember Ammiano charged. “ICE misled local jurisdictions from the beginning and blurred the lines between law enforcement and immigration, striking unnecessary fear into innocent people’s lives. The TRUST Act is a practical solution that will re-build trust with our immigrant communities and by doing so will restore some balance to this dysfunctional and unjust program.”


 

Big launch for Avalos, emphasizing unity and integrity

Sasha Cuttler
-
69

John Avalos launched his mayoral campaign yesterday with a spirited event in a sunny SoMa park that drew several hundred enthusiastic supporters, ranging from elected officials such as Assemblymember Tom Ammiano and Sups. Ross Mirkarimi and Eric Mar to representatives of a wide variety of progressive and community organizations.

There was also an unlikely supporter: Sen. Leland Yee, who is also running for mayor but spoke to reporters wearing an Avalos sticker and said he was pleased that Avalos is in the race. The two men were each endorsed by the SF Bay chapter of the Sierra Club over weekend, and Yee’s campaign appears to be trying to court the second place votes from supporters of Avalos, the only solid progressive in the race.

But political sideshows aside, this was a day for Avalos and his supporters to shine, and they demonstrated a larger and more energetic event than other mayoral candidates have managed to pull together so far. And the crowd took the opportunity to emphasize Avalos’ progressive values of integrity and collaboration, in the process taking subtle swipes at the ambitions and egocentrism of other mayoral candidates.

“We are for John Avalos because John Avalos is for all of us,” was the repeated refrain in a strong speech by “progressive Christian pastor” and blogger Bruce Reyes-Chow.

Ammiano noted that it was the birthday of Harvey Milk and said that Avalos is the heir to Milk’s legacy of promoting progressive change through community organizing. “Harvey Milk knew the secret and the secret was grassroots…Without that tethering together, we never move forward,” said Ammiano, whose endorsement of Avalos could be a significant factor in the race, particularly as Bay Area Reporter writers and other LGBT entities support other candidates.

Ammiano offered a few reasons for his endorsement, joking that, “He has the best hair of all the candidates.” But even more important was the issue of integrity and trustworthiness, where Ammiano said Avalos really shines. “Trust is a significant attribute and you don’t see a lot of that [in public life]. And John is honorable,” Ammiano said.

Other speakers from labor and progressive organizations emphasized how Avalos has been fighting for progressive causes his entire adult life. “John cares about the issues we care about and he listens,” said Andrea Buffa of Global Exchange, who also worked with Avalos on campaigns against corporate dominance when she worked for Media Alliance.

“I’m here to fight for John because John fights for all of us,” was the conclusion of the fifth-grade student from San Francisco Community School, who introduced Avalos.

During his speech, Avalos said he was touched by the huge turnout and display of enthusiasm. “It’s such a joy to see you here. My heart is swollen,” he said, before introducing his family and telling a story of his father’s lifetime of union activism on behalf of Los Angeles dock workers. “I learned from him the value of hard work and devotion to something much greater than yourself,” Avalos said.

And the main cause that Avalos has devoted himself to in San Francisco has been the progressive movement, with its commitment to workers rights and social and economic justice. “We see that wealth is accumulating into fewer and fewer hands,” Avalos said, one of several core problems that he said his candidacy is committed to addressing, later adding, “I’m running for mayor to even the playing field.”

While he advocated for creating safe streets for pedestrians and cyclists, stimulating job growth, and adopting a housing policy designed to promote diversity by creating more homes for low- and middle-income San Franciscans, he devoted much of his address to addressing the core problem of wealthy special interests getting their way at City Hall.

“We cannot have the same business as usual that greases the wheels with lobbyists,” Avalos said. “I’ll put the interests of the collective above the interests of the few, day in and day out.”

Avalos cast this year’s mayoral election as pivotal to San Francisco’s future. “As a city, we are at the crossroads and only we can turn the tide,” Avalos told a crowd from which almost 400 people signed up to volunteer on his campaign, closing with a line that echoed Milk’s refrain from almost 40 years ago: “I want to recruit you to this movement.”

Where’s Gascon on Ammiano’s pot bill?

Zelda Bronstein
-
4
Where’s Gascon on Ammiano’s pot bill?

Some very good news from Sacramento (and since good news from that part of the world is rare these days, let’s celebrate it). Assembly Member Tom Ammiano has a bill that would eliminate the mandatory felony charges for marijuana cultivation and allow district attorneys to charge some pot farmers with misdemeanors. And it’s cleared committee and is headed to the Assembly floor. The Bay Citizen has a decent wrapup on the politics (including the fact that the prison guards union isn’t going to like it — less customers).


It’s likely the Senate will go along with the bill, too — particularly since most of the district attorneys in Pot Country are supporting it. Mendocino DA David Eyster is the main sponsor. His colleagues in Humboldt, Del Norte and Lake Counties are all on board.


Oddly enough, the California District Attorneys Association still opposes the bill. The board of this august group seems to be dominated by the more conservative counties, but still: The DAs who have to deal with this issue regularly all want the bill passed. What’s up with that? Well, the spokesman for the group, Cory Salzillo, told me that the bill “send the wrong message with controlled substances generally” and that it would also give not only a prosecutor but a judge the ability to turn a potential felony into a misdemeanor. “We’re concerned about that judicial discretion,” he said.


Which seems, frankly, a little nuts — again, the four DAs who are most involved in charging people for cultivation of marijuana — the folks on the front lines, so to speak — want the bill to pass. So who decided the association position?


Salzillo says there’s a legislative committee, but since this one was controversial, it went to the full board. And guess what? There’s a San Francisco rep. on the board — Assistant D.A. Jerry Coleman. I called him to ask how the vote went down. Here’s our conversation:


Me: Hi, Mr. Coleman, I understand you’re on the board of the California DAs association and I wanted to talk to you about why that group is opposing the Ammiano marijuana bill, which the DAs of the north counties that deal with the issue all support.


Coleman: “I’m not the spokesman for that association.”


Me: Yes, but you’re on the board and I’m wondering if you voted in favor of opposing AB 1017.


Coleman: “I can’t give you an answer to that. I won’t discuss any vote. I don’t remember this one, but if I did I wouldn’t talk to you about it anyway.”


That was helpful.


Meanwhile, where’s Coleman’s boss, the San Francisco DA, George Gascon? This is a city that supports medical marijuana, has perhaps a few growers living in its city limits — and if I had to guess, about, maybe, 93 percent of the voters would agree that marijuana cultivation shouldn’t be an automatic felony. Why isn’t Gascon’s name on the list of supporters?


I dunno. His office hasn’t called me back. I’ll let you know when they do.

Legal scholars weigh in on Secure Communities

Mary Magee
-
5
Legal scholars weigh in on Secure Communities

In face of statements by Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, three legal scholars in California have offered their opinions on recent developments surrounding immigration enforcement in California and “Secure Communities” (S-Comm) a program run by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that automatically shares fingerprints at the point of arrest by local law enforcement.

Napolitano recently asserted that states and localities have no power to decide whether to participate in S-Comm, raising serious concerns about overreaching by the federal government and intrusion into local police power. In response, Aarti Kohli Director of Immigration Policy at the Warren Institute on Law & Social Policy at UC Berkeley’s law school, and law professors Hiroshi Motomura and Bill Ong Hing have weighed in on the growing controversy to provide, “accurate and important analysis on the legal terrain surrounding S-Comm.”

Kohli said that the reason academics are weighing in now is to point out that just because the federal government is asserting that it has certain authority doesn’t mean that’s the case, and that there are people who are interpreting the law differently.
“It’s not a cut and dry situation,” Kohli said of the federal government’s current position. “Strong arguments can be made that the federal government is overreaching.”

Kohli notes that at least 60 percent of the people who are currently in the country unlawfully entered the United States before 2000. “So, they have been here for over 11 years,” she said, noting that the last legalization opportunity for folks who entered unlawfully occurred in 1986. “So, you are talking 26 years ago,” she said, noting that there used to be many more options for people to adjust their status. “So, now you have people who have lived in the country for two decades who have not been able to legalize their status.”

Kohli observed that given the economic crisis, cooperating with the feds’ controversial “Secure Communities” program also becomes a question of priorities. “It becomes a question of where do you want to put your enforcement dollars,” she said, noting that state and local governments facing restraints in terms of jail space and resources. “So, does it make us safer to lock up low-level offenders, people who we would otherwise never dream of locking up, particularly in face of the constraints at the state and local levels?”

Initial research conducted by UC Berkeley’s Warren Institute’s indicates that S-Comm does implicate the use of local resources. 
“Data indicates that the majority of non-citizens who are booked into ICE custody through Secure Communities have been accused of low-level offenses, including traffic-related misdemeanors,” Kohli said in a press statement. “ Under typical circumstances, localities would allow low-level arrestees to post bond soon after an arrest.  However, if ICE issues a request for the local jurisdiction to hold the person, then bond is often denied and the person must remain in the local jail until the case comes before a judge.  Because of ICE holds, local jurisdictions use their own limited resources to feed, detain, and manage low-level offenders who would ordinarily not remain in custody.  All of this occurs before the person is even taken into custody by ICE.  Secure communities has resulted in a dramatic rise in ICE holds issued to local jails, thereby overburdening local law enforcement with the detention of those arrested on minor offenses who would not normally be held for extended periods.

Hiroshi Motomura, a law professor at UCLA, asserted that S_Comm undermines trust between local law enforcement and immigrant communities, may overstep the constitutional authority of the federal government to tell local governments how to run their police departments—and has a more basic flaw that has  policy and constitutional dimensions. “It is that the program delegates to local police the discretion to decide who—through stops and arrests—will be put into the immigration enforcement system, and who will not,” Motomura said in a press statement. “Even if the federal government retains the theoretical power to decide not to deport some non-citizens, local police will become the gatekeepers. As a practical matter, their decisions to arrest some residents but not others, to get tough with some neighborhoods but not others, will drive and direct federal immigration policy.  The constitutional command that U.S. citizenship is national citizenship means that immigration enforcement decisions can’t be left to local preferences—and local prejudices.  The local government proponents of opt-out aren’t arguing that they should be allowed to make immigration decisions.  Instead, they are arguing that no local officials should be allowed to make what must ultimately be national policy.”

And Bill Ong Hing, a law professor at the University of San Francisco reacted to ICE’s stated position that states and local governments must participate in S-Comm: “In the immigration field, the concept of preemption is an appropriate check on over-zealous local enforcement efforts that directly affect immigration regulation, while the Tenth Amendment is a check on federal intrusion on a local jurisdiction’s attempt to be more protective of individual rights and when the locality has a legitimate non-immigration-related purpose such as public safety,” he said. “The central teaching of the Tenth Amendment cases is that ‘even where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts.’ Congress may not, therefore, directly compel states or localities to enact or to administer policies or programs adopted by the federal government. It may not directly shift to the states enforcement and administrative responsibilities allocated to the federal government by the Constitution. Such a reallocation would not only diminish the political accountability of both state and federal officers, but it would also ‘compromise the structural framework of dual sovereignty,’ and separation of powers. Thus, Congress may not directly force states to assume enforcement or administrative responsibilities constitutionally vested in the federal government.”

Ong Hing also noted that S-Comm’s current Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between ICE and the State of California provides that it may be ‘modified at any time by mutual written consent of both parties. “The implication of this provision is clear: the terms of the MOA are negotiable,” he said

The trio’s move comes as local authorities in California and across the nation are increasingly turning against S-Comm, arguing that it overburdens local law enforcement with civil immigration enforcement, and results in high budgetary and social costs. 
Community advocates and several elected officials have already asserted that S-Comm harms community policing strategies by eroding trust between victims and witnesses of crime and police who fear immigration consequences. They cite examples of domestic violence victims in San Francisco and Maryland who have been placed in deportation proceedings after they called local law enforcement agencies for help.

In San Francisco, Sheriff Michael Hennessey has already asked to opt out of S-Comm because it casts “too wide a net”. Under the current program, S-Comm calls for fingerprinting and federal immigration database checks of arrestees, including those jailed for minor offenses like a broken taillight. And community advocates warn that the program can result in deportation without conviction or a trial. But the federal government has stated that only states can opt out. Last week, shortly after Illinois announced that it was pulling out of S-Comm, and a bill that Assemblymember Tom Ammiano authored, requiring the Attorney General to allow California counties to opt out of the program passed out of a committee, Hennessey announced that he will start releasing from jail undocumented immigrants who have been arrested for low-level crimes, even if federal officials notified through S-Comm’s fingerprint identification program request that they be held for deportation hearings.

Hennessey’s new policy is set to begin June 1. It means that undocumented immigrants arrested for petty crimes such as disorderly conduct, drunk in public or shoplifting will not be held in jail until ICE come to collect them. And it will make San Francisco the first California county to implement such a policy.

Hennessey explained that local jails are not required to hold inmates if ICE has identified them as undocumented, so sheriff’s deputies won’t be violating the law. Currently, sheriff’s deputies hold undocumented immigrants who have been booked for low-level offenses until ICE picks them up. But under the new policy sheriff’s deputies will release them with a citation as they do in cases involving U.S. citizens.

Hennessey, who is retiring and has endorsed Sup.Ross Mirkarimi in the race to replace him this fall, says the shift is intended to uphold the city’s sanctuary ordinance, which prohibits local officials from assisting ICE unless a felony crime is involved.

ICE’s own statistics seem to support Hennessey’s concerns: From June 2010 until February, 111 people that S-Comm identified were deported without being convicted in criminal court. 85 people who committed the lowest two levels of crimes were deported, plus 45 who committed felonies, including rape and assault.

But ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice decribed Hennessey’s decision as “unfortunate”.
“ICE detainers are an effective tool to ensure that individuals arrested on criminal charges, who are also in violation of U.S. immigration law, are not released back into the community to potentially commit more crimes,” Kice said in a statement.

Illinois pulls out of Secure Communities

Mary Magee
-
16
Illinois pulls out of Secure Communities

As California considers reforming Secure Communities, Illinois announced today that it is terminating its involvement in the controversial federal immigration program. California and Illinois moves come in face of Washington D.C’s decision to opt out of S-Comm and Washington State’s refusal to participate. And they test ICE’s claims that the program is mandatory, as other states watch these developments.

(UPDATE: Yesterday, I erroneously reported that New York State had refused to participate in S-Comm.That is not the case. New York State does allow jurisdictions to participate, they have a MOA with ICE, and 8 more counties just joined. I confused NY with Washington State, which has refused to join.)

In a May 4 letter to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn enclosed a notice from Illinois State Police (ISP) director Hiram Grau, notifying ICE that because of its indiscriminate use of the “Secure Communities” deportation program, Illinois is terminating the November 2009 S-Comm Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between ISP and U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s ICE.”

“The stated purpose of the program, as set forth in the MOA, is to “identify, detain and remove from the United States aliens who have been convicted of ¬serious criminal offenses and are subject to removal (emphasis added), ICE’s statistics on the Secure Communities program, compiled through February 28, 2011, reveal that the implementation of the Secure Communities program in Illinois is contrary to the stated purpose of the MOA: more than 30 percent of those deported from the United States, under the program, have never been convicted of ¬any crime, much less a serious one. In fact, by ICE’s own measure, less than 20 percent of those who have been deported from Illinois under the program have ever been convicted of a serious crime.”

Quinn notes that on November 9, 2010, his office directed ISP to suspend S-Comm until a review of the program and its adherence to the MOA could be conducted. “Upon evaluation of data provided by ICE to the State of Illinois, conversations between ICE and members of my administration, and a new, proposed MOA from ICE, it’s clear that the conflict between the MOA as signed by ISP and ICE’s implementation of the program cannot be resolved to the State of Illinois’ satisfaction.”

“With this termination, no new counties in Illinois can be activated and those counties that were previously activated… must be deactivated and removed from the Secure Communities program,” Quinn concludes.

Illinois’ move comes as California Assemblymember Tom Ammiano’s Transparency and Responsibility Using State Tools (TRUST) Act passes out of the California Assembly’s Public Safety Committee, next stop appropriations. The TRUST Act would allow local governments to opt out of S-Comm or set standards for jurisdictions that chose to participate. Joining Ammiano as co-sponsors of the TRUST Act are Assemblymembers Gil Cedillo (D-LA) and Bill Monning (D- Carmel) and Sen. Leland Yee (D-SF). Endorsers include 80 organizations, local governments and elected officials, including the Santa Clara and Santa Cruz County Boards, San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey, who blew the whistle on S-Comm in San Francisco a year ago, and has endorsed San Francisco Sup. Ross Mirkarimi in the sheriff’s race this fall, retired Sacramento Police Chief Arturo Venegas, and civil rights and faith groups, including the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, the California Labor Federation, the San Bernardino Catholic Diocese and Equality California.

Advocates hope Ammiano’s TRUST Act will restore balance and accountability to the nation’s immigration system. They charge that S-Comm’s misleading focus, over-broad reach and lack of transparency have eroded trust between police and immigrant communities, making victims and witnesses to crimes reluctant to come forward.

The TRUST Act would make S-Comm an “opt-in” program so local governments can tailor their participation based on local needs.The bill would set safeguards for municipalities that do elect to participate in S-Comm to guard against racial profiling and would ensure that children and domestic violence survivors are not swept up by S-Comm. The TRUST act also upholds the right to a day in court by only reporting for deportation individuals convicted – not merely accused – of crimes.

These moves come fresh in the heels of Congressman Luis Gutierrez’s April 27 appearance in San Francisco, where he was joined by San Francisco Sups David Campos and John Avalos, and Board President David Chiu in asking President Obama for administrative relief from rapidly increasing deportations.
“We need to stop deporting parents and ripping apart all families, including same-sex partners, “ wrote Chiu, Campos and mayoral candidate Avalos. “We need to stop deporting students who would have been eligible for the DREAM ACT. Last year, the U.S. deported an estimated 400,000 immigrants, the highest number of deportations per year in the history of our nation. We must allow our counties to opt out of  “S-Comm” (Secure Communities), which is making our communities less secure, and we support Congressman Gutierrez in these courageous requests. Immigrants are part of the fabric of our communities, and we need to fix our immigration system so everyone who lives here can continue to live as a full member of society without constant fear of safety, security, and livelihood being jeopardized at any moment.”

 

 

Editor’s notes

Andrew Lam
-
6
Editor’s notes

tredmond@sfbg.com

The candidates for mayor of San Francisco are already lining up endorsements — the Sierra Club held its interviews April 23, which seems awfully early to me, since some of the most interesting contenders in this town (Tom Ammiano, Matt Gonzalez) have a tendency to jump in at the last minute. And the filing deadline isn’t until August.

But the sooner the big names and organizations are lined up and the money is locked in, the harder it will be for anyone to pull off an August surprise. So unless the redistricting commission seriously messes with Mark Leno’s state Senate seat or Ed Lee bows to the pressure from Willie Brown, Rose Pak, and their allies and decides to go back on his promise and seek a full term, we’re probably looking at a rough approximation of what the voters will face in November.

With John Avalos in the race, the ballot’s become a lot more attractive to progressives. It’s not as if the other major candidates don’t have a lot to offer, and in some cases, they have a lot to offer to the left. There are smart, experienced, qualified people running.

But let’s be honest here: David Chiu, Dennis Herrera, Phil Ting, Leland Yee, and Bevan Dufty all operate somewhere in the squishy political center, a place where tax breaks for corporations are okay, where “homeownership opportunities” tend to trump the needs of tenants, where deals with big private developers are sculpted around the edges but never rejected outright, and where cuts in services are a larger part of the budget solution than taxes on the rich.

Michela Alioto-Pier is off on the far right of the San Francisco political world, and if she looks at all credible and gets any significant traction (and that’s a big if) she’ll be downtown’s favorite candidate. But until now, there was nobody holding the solid progressive banner.

I don’t think that means Avalos’ appeal is limited to the left; he’s in a swing district, and he’s very popular there, and he can talk about small business and community development and open, honest government. He doesn’t sound like a crazy radical; he’s polite and respectful and listens to people.

But I’m glad we have a candidate who won’t try to argue that 25 percent affordable housing at Treasure Island is something to be proud of, or that the Twitter tax break will create jobs, or that social inequality can’t be addressed through local policy. I’m glad there’s someone who can push the discussion and debate out of the middle, can force some of the others who want progressive support to take strong stands, and can liven things up a bit. Because without him, all of the candidates were sounding a lot alike — and I really don’t want to be bored this fall.

Busy week for immigration reform advocates

Mary Magee
-
12
Busy week for immigration reform advocates

On Tuesday, April 26, the California Assembly’s Public Safety Committee holds a hearing on AB 1081, Assemblymember Tom Ammiano’s Transparency and Responsibility Using State Tools (TRUST) Act. The TRUST Act seeks to allow local governments to opt out of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE’s) controversial “Secure Communities” program and to set standards for jurisdictions that chose to participate in S-Comm.

Also on Tuesday, Congressmember Luis Gutierrez kicks off his “Change Takes Courage” immigrant rights tour in seven California cities. Gutierrez lands in San Francisco Wednesday, April 27, and the Bay Area immigrant community and LGBT leaders will host him on the steps of City Hall, as Gutierrez asks President Obama to stop the record number of deportations of immigrant families and students that have already occurred under the Obama administration.

Joining Ammiano in Sacramento on Tuesday as co-sponsors of the TRUST Act are Assemblymembers Gil Cedillo (D-LA) and Bill Monning (D- Carmel) and Sen. Leland Yee (D-SF). Endorsers include 80 organizations, local governments and elected officials, including the Santa Clara and Santa Cruz County Boards, San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey and retired Sacramento Police Chief Arturo Venegas, and civil rights and faith groups, including the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, the California Labor Federation, the San Bernardino Catholic Diocese and Equality California.

SF Sheriff Michael Hennessey blew the whistle on S-Comm last May, but was unable to stop the feds from activating the program in San Francisco last June. And the most recent batch of S-Comm statistics show that San Francisco, once famed as a sanctuary city, now ranks in the top 38 counties nationwide that deport “non-criminal aliens,” which is ICE-speak for immigrants whose primary misstep is that they are in the country without the requisite paperwork.

Ammiano’s Trust Act hearing comes just days after Congressmember Zoe Lofgren (D- San Jose) called for an investigation into the conduct of ICE officials around advising local municipalities whether they are required to participate in ICE’s S-Comm program.

“You can’t have a government department essentially lying to local government and to members of Congress. This is not OK,” Lofgren said April 22, following the disclosure of hundreds of ICE documents that allegedly show that the agency has been giving intentionally contradictory and misleading information about S-Comm to local officials.

“From then-Attorney General Brown on down, it’s painfully clear ICE deceived Californians about S-Comm,” said Angela Chan, a staff attorney with the Asian Law Caucus. “That’s unacceptable behavior for a government agency in a democracy.”

Advocates hope that Ammiano’s TRUST Act will restore balance and accountability to the nation’s otherwise broken immigration system. They charge that S-Comm’s misleading focus, over-broad reach and lack of transparency have eroded trust between police and immigrant communities, making victims and witnesses to crimes reluctant to come forward.

The TRUST Act would make S-Comm an “opt-in” program so local governments can tailor their participation based on local needs.

The bill would also set safeguards for municipalities that do elect to participate in S-Comm to guard against racial profiling and would ensure that children and domestic violence survivors are not swept up by S-Comm.

The TRUST act also upholds the right to a day in court by only reporting for deportation individuals convicted – not merely accused – of crimes.

Tuesday’s hearing will be followed by Congressman Luis Gutierrez’s Wednesday appearance in San Francisco, which the African Advocacy Network, Asian Law Caucus, Central American Resource Center, Chinese for Affirmative Action, People Organized to Demand Environmental and Economic Rights, Out4Immigration, San Francisco Interfaith Coalition on Immigration, and Dolores Street Community Services sponsored.

Sups David Campos, John Avalos, and David Chiu will join Gutierrez and their message to President Obama is laid out in the following press statement:

“We need administrative relief to uphold the values of opportunity, justice, and human rights for all to move our country forward. With the stroke of a pen, President Obama could put a halt to the rapidly increasing deportations that are taking place. We need to stop deporting parents and ripping apart all families, including same-sex partners. We need to stop deporting students who would have been eligible for the DREAM ACT. Last year, the U.S. deported an estimated 400,000 immigrants, the highest number of deportations per year in the history of our nation. We must allow our counties to opt out of  “S-Comm” (Secure Communities), which is making our communities less secure, and we support Congressman Gutierrez in these courageous requests. Immigrants are part of the fabric of our communities, and we need to fix our immigration system so everyone who lives here can continue to live as a full member of society without constant fear of safety, security, and livelihood being jeopardized at any moment.”

 
 

Avalos for mayor? He’s talking about it

Zelda Bronstein
-
130
Avalos for mayor? He’s talking about it

The San Francisco mayor’s race is taking a new twist: Sup. John Avalos — one of the best, most consistent and productive progressives on the board — is looking at running.


Avalos told me he wasn’t interested in the interim mayor job and “this was never on my mind when I ran for supervisor.” But the process of selecting an interim mayor and the politics of Sup. David Chiu’s re-election as board president left him deeply disturbed. “I was blown away by how the process was perverted into a backroom deal based on personal ambition,” he said. “The side of the progressive movement that’s about good government and transparency was lost.”


So he’s been meeting with potential supporters and discussing what an Avalos for Mayor campaign would look like.


Although he’s only been in office two years, Avaos has been Budget Committee chair and has a solid and impressive legislative record (the local hire law being his most recent accomplishment). He has as much experience as Matt Gonzalez did when he ran for mayor (and, obvioulsy, as much experience as Chiu, who is also running.)


He makes the case that the progressive movement is better off in the long term if there’s a strong progressive in the race: “If we don’t have someone running, we won’t do as well in district elections next time,” he said, noting that the progressive victories in 2000 and 2004 were helped by the energy generated by Tom Ammiano’s mayoral campaign in 1999 and the Gonzalez campaign in 2003.


Not everyone in progresive poltics agrees with that analysis; I’ve heard from a number of community leaders who question whether what everyone agrees would be a longshot mayoral campaign is the best use if prorogressive resources right now.
But Avalos, to his immense credit, isn’t going to do this on his own. “I don’t believe in just announcing one day,” he told me. “I’m going to talk to people, and if there’s enough support for me, fine, and if there isn’t, I won’t run.”


That’s a sharp contrast to Chris Daly, who has pretty much announced that if no other progressive runs, he will. And with all due respect to the former District 6 supervisor — who has done a tremendous amount of good for the city, and I mean that with all sincerity — Daly’s not the right person to carry the progressive standard in the November mayor’s race.

Ammiano says support is growing for TRUST Act

Mary Magee
-
5
Ammiano says support is growing for TRUST Act

Assemblymember Tom Ammiano says that statewide support is building for AB 1081 (the TRUST Act), which would give local governments the right to opt-out of the controversial Secure Communities program.

As the Guardian previously reported, ten months after ICE’s controversial S-Comm program was activated in San Francisco, our “sanctuary city” ranks among the top 38 counties nationwide deporting “non-criminal aliens.”

“Unlikely allies are lining up behind this bill because ICE misled the public about S-Comm, whose real focus is more spin than safety,” Ammiano said in a press release today. “In fact, seven in ten Californians deported under S-Comm had committed no crime or were picked up for minor offenses like traffic violations. The program is ruining trust between immigrant communities and the police. But here in California, we can do better. This bill is a practical solution that lets local governments have a say and restores some balance to this dysfunctional system.”

Joining Ammiano as co-sponsors of the TRUST (Transparency and Responsibility Using State Tools) Act are Assemblymembers Gil Cedillo and Bill Monning and Sen. Leland Yee. And the act, which is billed as a pro-safety and pro-transparency proposal, already has the support of over 50 organizations and a slew of elected local officials.

These officials include San Francisco Sheriff Mike Hennessey who blew the whistle on the program last May, when federal authorities privately told local law enforcement agencies that S-Comm was going live in San Francisco in June 2010. At the time, there had been no public hearings on the proposed program, which links fingerprints taken when folks are booked at county jails with federal and international databases—in other words, before folks charged with crimes have had their day in court.

A press release from Ammiano’ s office states that S-Comm’s “misleading focus, over-broad reach and lack of transparency” has eroded trust between police and immigrant communities and sparked considerable open government concerns —problems the TRUST Act aims to fix.

In addition to allowing municipalities to opt-out, the TRUST Act would also sets basic safeguards for local governments that participate in the program to guard against racial profiling, protect the rights of children and domestic violence survivors. And it would uphold the right to a day in court by only reporting for deportation individuals convicted, not merely accused, of crimes. 

“Under S-Comm, a desperate call for help can quickly turn into a nightmare situation for victims of domestic violence,” said Tara Shabazz, Executive Director of the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence. “We’ve seen victims of abuse reported for deportation from San Francisco to Lodi, California. This bill will protect abuse victims and remove an important barrier to reaching out for help, and we are proud to support it.”

Ammiano’s office says that these serious public safety and civil liberties concerns have pushed local governments to seek a way out of the program, imposed on communities with no transparency or opportunity for local oversight. They note that the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors unanimously requested to opt out of S-Comm program in September 2010, but after months of confusion, ICE refused to honor the county’s request.

“The Federal Government forced this program on my jail without my consent,” SF Sheriff Michael Hennessey said. “By allowing local governments to opt out of this flawed program, AB 1081 will help law enforcement win back some trust with immigrant communities. That, in turn, will help improve public safety for everyone.” 

 “The TRUST Act raises this unregulated and inaccurate program to California’s standards and ensures transparency and accountability through clear data reporting requirements for local jurisdictions opting to participate in S-Comm,” said Chris Newman, National Day Laborer Organizing Network’s legal director.
 AB 1081 will be heard in the Assembly Committee on Public Safety on Tuesday, April 26 at 9 a.m. in State Capitol Room 126.

SF in top 38 counties nationwide that deport “non-criminal aliens”

Mary Magee
-
38
SF in top 38 counties nationwide that deport “non-criminal aliens”

So much for San Francisco being a sanctuary city. The National Day Laborer Organization (NDLON) and two other organizations have unearthed statistics that show San Francisco in the nation’s “top 38” counties, when it comes to deporting immigrants who had not been convicted of crimes.

The statistics, which the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department provided as part of a public records request,  also show that California is the top state in the nation, when it comes to deporting “non-criminal aliens,” which is how federal authorities categorize immigrants who lack visas and green cards, since both are simply violation of civil administrative law, and not criminal acts.

These revelations come as internal documents, procured by the New York Times, suggest that federal immigration officers, facing resistance from Chicago and Cook County to join ICE’s controversial Secure-Communities program, pushed local officials to secure the participation of reluctant police departments.

Immigrant advocates say these newly released documents are fueling concerns that S-Comm is being used to circumvent due process for immigrants, and futher illustrate the need for reform, at the statewide level, to avoid abuse.

But ICE refutes charges that it is circumventing due process and primarily deporting immigrants who have not committed serious crimes.
“Secure Communities is a comprehensive initiative to modernize the criminal alien enforcement process,” an ICE spokesperson told the Guardian. “While ICE prioritizes the removal of convicted criminal aliens, the agency still enforces the law with regard to other aliens who are subject to removal. In addition to criminal aliens, ICE’s priorities include other individuals who pose a potential threat to public safety – such as those with known gang affiliations and prior drunk driving arrests – as well as immigration fugitives and individuals who have tried to game the immigration system.”

ICE officials also said that their review of the latest S-Comm statistics for San Francisco County show that “more than 60 percent of the aliens who’ve come into ICE custody since Secure Communities’ local activation are convicted criminals. What’s more, nearly one third of those cases involve individuals who’ve been convicted of Level 1 offenses [felony crimes].

But NDLON spokesperson B. Loewe said the newest data show that, several years into the S-Comm program, problems that immigrant advocates have been raising since S-Comm began, are continuing.
“There is no protection for the innocent, or even victims of crime, and the program appears to lend itself to circumventing due process,” Loewe said. “The latest numbers should raise concerns for anyone who cares not just fro civil rights but also for public safety for all.”

The S-Comm statistics emerged as part of a Freedom of Information Act request that NDLON, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the Immigration Justice Clinic of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law filed pertaining to ICE’s controversial Secure -Communities program.

Launched in Texas in March 2008, S-Comm involves state and local entities in the enforcement of federal immigration law by turning on a mechanism to run fingerprints through various databases when individuals are arrested, even if those individuals are brought in on minor charges or if their charges are subsequently dismissed.

“What’s most significant is that San Francisco is among the top 38 counties nationwide, and among the top 13 California counties,” said Jon Rodney, communications project coordinator at the California Immigrant Policy Center.

“The numbers speak for themselves,” said Angela Chan, a San Francisco Police Commissioner and Asian Law Caucus staff attorney. Chan noted that between October 2008, when California began implementing S-Comm, and February 2011, California has deported 35,643 local residents.
“That’s 10,000 more than Texas, which deported 24,152 residents,” Chan observed. She also noted that California is the state that deports the highest numbers of residents nationwide.
 
The top 13 counties in California deporting the highest percentage of non-criminal?  Merced, Fresno, Tulare, Solano, Monterey, Kern, San Luis Obispo, San Francisco San Joaquin, Contra Costa, Riverside, Sonoma, and Alameda, in that order.

This latest round of charges comes ten months after S-Comm was first activated in San Francisco, and fresh on the heels of Assemblymember Tom Ammiano’s announcement of AB 1081, a bill that would honor the right of local governments to opt out of the federal S-Comm and set basic safeguards for those municipalities that do decide to participate.

Chan notes that the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee will hold a hearing on AB 1081 on April 26.

“Ammiano’s bill is timely and crucial,” Chan said, noting  that California signed an S-Comm agreement without public input, notice or negotiations.

“That [process] raised concerns that California signed a boilerplate agreement that was dictated by ICE” Chan said. “And it’s part of the reason why we have such high numbers of deportations,” she continued, noting that Ammiano’s bill “connects to an existing clause,” in the memorandum of understanding  that the California Attorney General’s Office signed with ICE, back when Gov. Jerry Brown was still California Attorney General.

Ammiano’s bill would require the California Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information to modify the agreement it entered into with the US Department of Homeland Security in May 2009, regarding S-Communities. 

Meanwhile, in a March 7 memo (a copy was procured through NDLON’s public records request) ICE noted that its Secure-Comm program produced over 133,000 matches in the first five months of 2011, compared to 248,000 matches in 2010.

ICE also noted that since the program was first activated in Harris County, Texas, on Oct. 27, 2008, the agency has removed over 94,000 aliens and over 24,600 criminal aliens convicted of Level 1 (felony offenses) that were identified through the program.

“Deployment continues to be the primary driver for increased identifications,” ICE stated, observing that in the first five months of 2011, ICE will deploy S-Comm in 409 new jurisdictions. This means that by the end of May, 1,067 jurisdictions will be activated in 39 states, “covering 70 percent of the foreign non-citizen population.”

ICE’s goal is to deploy the program to an additional 488 jurisdictions by the end of 2011, bringing the total jurisdictions deployed by year’s end to 897.

But as Chan notes, Ammiano’s AB 1081 has implications for how and whether S-Comm gets activated in any more California counties,
“AB 1081 requires needed modifications to California’s S-Comm agreement, which was signed in April 2009 by California,” Chan said. “ It was one of the first, if not the first, agreement signed by a state to enter into S-Comm.  AB 1081 taps into this contract term, which allows modification and termination of the agreement, to allow counties to opt in or out of the deeply flawed program.”
 
 

Ammiano: what about the hospitals?

Zelda Bronstein
-
2
Ammiano: what about the hospitals?

One of the most frightening aspects of an major earthquake in the Bay Area is the potential destruction of some of the big  local hospitals. “If it happened today, we’d have no SF General, no Kaiser,” Assembly Member Tom Ammiano told me. St. Lukes? I wouldn’t bet on it. And considering the conditions in Sendai, that’s not a pleasant prospect.


State law requires all hospitals to undergo seismic upgrades by 2013 — but the deadline keeps getting pushed back. Ammiano said there are more delays pending, more bills in the Legislature that would allow some operators (particularly private hospitals) to miss the deadline without penalty.


Both Stanford and CPMC has tried to claim that they can’t do the work yet because of local obstacles. (Actually, there are no local obstacles to upgrading exisiting CPMC facilities, just to the construction of a new hospital on Cathedral Hill.)


Sme public hospitals say they lack the money. “But in Francisco, we did the right thing. We passed a hospital bond,” Ammiano said. “When my colleagues from other areas say they can’t meet the deadline, I ask them — did you vote for a hospital bond?”


Ammiano plans to introduce legislation to pre-empt any further delays and get this process back on track. “It’s horrifying to see what happened to the hospitals in Japan,” he said. “We need to be prepared in California.”


 

Editor’s Notes

Jesse Hawthorne Ficks
-
1
Editor’s Notes

Tredmond@sfbg.com

Back in the early 1990s, when the city was hurting for money even more than usual, Sue Hestor, the environmental lawyer who is always full of good ideas, called me up and suggested that the city start charging banks a fee for every storefront ATM. "They have turned the public sidewalks into their bank lobbies," she said. ATMs can lead to congestion and are magnets for crime; why shouldn’t the banks (which made a lot of money replacing human tellers with machines and costly private space with public property) help pay for some of those impacts? After all, banks escaped most local business taxes.

I ran that one up the old flagpole, and got nowhere. Back then, the city attorney was Louise Renne, who wasn’t known for aggressive approaches to revenue generation; she immediately told me it wasn’t legal. Back then, at least nine of the 11 supervisors were guaranteed to vote against anything that would offend big business.

A few years later, Tom Ammiano, who had become the only supervisor serious about brining in new money for San Francisco, suggested that the city put a tiny tax on transactions at the Pacific Stock Exchange. A similar tax in New York City had brought in millions. The exchange quickly marched up to Sacramento and got the state to outlaw the idea.

Down in Los Angeles, they’re trying to put a severance tax on oil production. Great idea. Too bad (not really) we have no oil wells here.

Lots of good ideas. It’s time for some more.

Things in San Francisco are really, really dire, and the district-elected supervisors are far more open to progressive approaches to the budget crisis. And if you’re willing to stipulate — as I am — that San Francisco has a revenue problem as much as a spending problem, and that the rich and big businesses are radically undertaxed, then its time for a comprehensive look at the ways this city might bring in some more money.

There are some nice concepts floating around. David Chiu, the Board of Supervisors president, is talking about reforming the city’s business tax. Sup. John Avalos tried to put a nickel-a-drink impact fee on alcohol wholesalers. Sup. David Campos thinks downtown should help pay for Muni service. I still like the notion of a city income tax.

But what we need is a long list of options — a complete guide to how a charter city and county in California in 2011 is legally allowed to raise money.

Dennis Herrera, the city attorney, is a smart guy; he’s figured out all kinds of ways to use his office to go after polluters, scam artists, and crooks. I suspect that with a bit of a nudge, he could help develop a few dozen legally sound ways to tax the wealthy individuals and institutions. That ought to be priority one for the Budget Committee.

I’m not sure what would work best, and nobody else is either. But we ought to have all the options.

The future of the San Francisco left

Zelda Bronstein
-
72
The future of the San Francisco left

That, at least, was the title of the Milk Club forum March 1. Quite a panel, too: Sups. Avalos, Campos, Chiu, Kim and Mar. Tim Paulson from the Labor Council. Former Milk Club Prez Jef Sheehy. Tiny from Poor Magazine. And me.


I told the assembled that it was worth reminding ourselves how far we’ve come — when I started in this business, in 1982, Dianne Feinstein was mayor, there was exactly one reliable progressive on the Board of Supervisors (Harry Britt) and it was impossible for grassroots types without big gobs of money to get elected to high office. I’ve lived through Feinstein, Agnos, Jordan and Brown, all (until the end of the Brown Era) with at-large boards. It was awful trying to get anything good done; all we could do was fight to prevent the truly horrible from happening. Under Brown, as Sheehy noted, San Francisco politics was locked down, tight; the machine ruled, the Democratic Party was not a force for progressive issues and only a few exceptional leaders, like Tom Ammiano, kept the spirit alive.


Today, the very fact that five supervisors showed up at a Milk Club event to talk about progressive politics shows how district elections has transformed the city and how far we’ve come.


That said, we’ve still failed to make much progress on the most important issue of the day — the gap between the rich and the poor, the fact that this city has great povery and great wealth and the utterly unsustainable economic and tax system that has made us the most socially unequal society in the industrialized world.


Sheehy talked about the schools (both he and are are parents of kids in the public schools). Good schools, he said, are one of the most important socialequalizers; with a good education, poor kids have a chance. But while our local billionaires enjoy nice tax breaks, we’re starving the schools.


Kim talked abou the need for summer school and longer school years (I would add longer school days). These are things San Francisco can do — if we’re willing. “We’re talking about taxes,” Sheehy said, and he’s right.


In the past five years, I think we’ve cut about a billion dollars out of the General Fund, labor has given back more than $300 million — and we’ve raised $90 million in new taxes. Not good enough, not even close.


Yes, the bad economy is to blame for our fiscal problems, but so is the fact that we have a tax structure that systematically underfunds the public sector. (And yes, my conservative friends, cops shouldn’t retire with $250,000 a year pensions. Got it.)


Tiny made a strong statement about the essential problem facing the city when she asked, “who isn’t here?” She didn’t just mean that there were too many white people in the room (althought that was true); she meant that there were were too many working-class and poor people who can no longer live in San Francisco.


Sheehy was even more blunt: “In five years,” he said, looking out at the room, “none of us are going to be here.”
And my essential message to the crowd (and the elected officials on the panel) was: We don’t have to accept that. These are problmes we can address, right here in San Francisco. If we want to, we can shift the burden of paying the costs of society at least a little bit off the backs of the poor and middle class and onto the rich.


Nobody directly disagreed with me. In fact, Chiu announced that “income inequality is something all of us care about.”
How agressively he and others try to turn that concern into legislation will tell us something.


Two other interesting moments:


1. Every single person on the panel talked about how important Tom Ammiano was to the modern progressive movement. One by one, every panelists described the 1999 Ammiano for Mayor campaign as a defining moment in their lives and in the emergence of today’s progressive politics. Good to see the guy get the recognition he so richly deserves.


2. Campos, who was sitting next to Chiu, made a point of saying that there’s no longer a progressive majority on the board, and he pointed to the committee assignments that gave conservatives control of some key panels. Chiu responded: “At the end of the day, we have a progressive majority on the board that will serve as a backstop” to anything bad that comes out of committees.


It was curious; it sounded almost as if Chiu was disappointed in his own assignments. Why would you need a “backstop” if the committees were good in the first place?


So I called him the next day and asked him about it. First he said he thought the commitees were balanced and it was all going to be fine. But when I asked him directly — why not appoint progressive majorities on the key committees? — he responded:


“I wish the board presidency vote hadn’t turned out the way it did.”


In other words: If the progressives had all voted for Chiu, he wouldn’t have appointed conservatives to key posts of power. Instead, some progressives voted for Avalos, and Chiu won with the votes of Carmen Chu, Scott Wiener, Sean Elsbernd and Mark Farrell (along with Kim and Mar). The payback, the deal, the whatever you want to call it, means that bad decisions will be made at Land Use and Rules and maybe in the Budget Committee, and Chiu as much as admitted that the progressive majority will have to go to unusual lengths to undo them.


I know how politics works; I know you have to dance with the ones that brung you and all that. But it would be nice if every now and then someone would do something just because it was the right thing to do, and to hell with the political consequences.


I suppose that’s too much to ask.


 

Ammiano takes on prison costs

Zelda Bronstein
-
9
Ammiano takes on prison costs

Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-SF) is taking on a crucial, but challenging task: trying to cut down on the costs of the prison system by eliminating some expensive waste in two sensitive areas: Drugs and sex offenders.


His drug bill is pretty much a no-brainer, and has the support of a bunch of district attorneys, including Mendocino County D.A. David Eyster, support it. The bill, AB 1017, would allow local prosecutors to charge (non-medical) marijuana growers with either a felony or a misdemenaor, depending on the circumstances. Right now, any amount of illegal cultivation is automatically a felony. Eyster:


It makes no sense that unlawful possession of less than one ounce of marijuana is an infraction, that possession of more than an ounce of marijuana is a misdemeanor, that possession of methamphetamines may be charged as a misdemeanor, but that growing any amount of marijuana must be charged as a straight felony punishable by prison.


The difference could be millions of dollars saved by county prosecutors and the prison system.


The sex-offender bill is pretty simple, too — although the GOP will no doubt get all hissy about it. AB 625 would allow for a tiered approach to the registration of sex offenders. It’s based on a state report that point out how little sense it makes to keep nonviolent offenders who are highly unlikely to commit another sex crime under the same level of expensive, tight monitoring — for life — as high-risk offenders.


The truth, according to Rebecca Blanton, a senior policy analyst at the California Research Bureau, is that only 5% of all sex offenders released from prison are arrested for another sex crime. That means 95% never again get charged with any of the six categories of crimes that require lifetime registration and monitoring.


Now, that doesn’t mean that none of those people commit sex crimes and don’t get caught. Nor does it mean they are all model citizens — The state tracked 2,028 sex criminals released in 2005 and found that 113 comitteed another sex crime, and 110 committed another crime. The most common reason for them to be back in jail was parole violations (that’s true of almost every class of California offender, since almost anything can be a parole violation, including missing an appointment with your parole officer).


But only 6.3% of the sex offenders tracked in that three-year study were charged with a crime against another person.


Ammiano’s not trying to make life easy for sex criminals (that’s what the GOPers will no doubt say). But there’s ample quantitiative evidence to show that some offenders are far more likely to be a threat to society — and many others aren’t — yet the state spend the same amount of resources on every category. A tiered system (which exists in all but three other states) would allow California authorities to track more closely the dangerous folks and pay less attention to the ones who are highly unlikely to offend again. 


Ammiano:


With the skyrocketing costs of corrections in California, we need to base our management and enforcement of sex offenders on the research and data available rather than emotion.  This means focusing our efforts and resources on the most dangerous offenders to ensure that the registry achieves its primary goal – to keep our children and communities safe. 


Tom Tobin, co-chair of the Sex Offender Management Board:


 


California needs to modify its current policy and start devoting our limited resources to those individuals who pose the greatest risk of re-offending.  Common sense and solid research both agree that not all sex offenders pose the same degree of risk of re-offending.  Many pose very little risk.  Unless one accepts the myth that “all sex offenders are alike,” there can be no defensible justification for treating them all the same and requiring lifetime registration for each and every convicted sex offender.  This puts an increasing burden on law enforcement and does not make our communities any safer.


So lets see if the nutty law-and-order crowd in Sacto is willing to listen to facts and reason this time around.

Is Adachi’s pension reform a Tea Party initiative?

Mary Magee
-
54
Is Adachi’s pension reform a Tea Party initiative?

With all eyes on Wisconsin, local labor leaders are suggesting that Public Defender Jeff Adachi’s proposed retirement/health plan reforms are really Tea Party initiatives, even as Adachi threatens to place another Measure B-like initiative on the fall ballot if city leaders can’t agree on a fix for the city’s fiscal problems

Last fall, Adachi started a war with the local labor movement when he placed Measure B on the November ballot. Measure B proposed increasing employee contributions for retirement benefits, decreasing employer contributions for heath benefits for employees, retirees and their dependents, and changing rules for arbitration proceedings about city collective bargaining agreements,

Measure B ultimately failed, but not after both sides spent a ton of cash. And now labor is refusing to have Adachi sit in on their pension reform talks with Mayor Ed Lee, former SEIU President Andy Stern is describing the fight in Wisconsin as a ’15 state GOP Power grab,” and SEIU Local 1021 leader Gabriel Haaland is pointing to Wisconsin as a reason for excluding Adachi from pension reform talks

“Adachi’s obviously scapegoating a group that’s part of a national agenda,” Haaland said, noting that in the states where Republicans gained statehouse control in 2010, there’s talk about eliminating collective bargaining, and ending defined benefit plans and paycheck protection.

“The problem is that pension reform has been blowing on the anti-public sector worker winds that are blowing in Wisconsin and other states, whether progressives want to acknowledge it or not,” Haaland continued. “There is a reason that Adachi got so much money last year, and the corporate interests behind him are part of this effort to bash public sector workers.”

Prop. B’s campaign finance records show the campaign raised $1.125 million in 2010, and that the lion’s share came from wealthy individuals.

Billionaire venture capitalist, former Google board member and Obama supporter Michael Moritz gave $245,000. Author Harrier Heyman, Moritz’ wife, donated $172,500. financial analyst Richard Beleson donated $110,000. George Hume of Basic American Foods donated $50,000. Gov. Schwarzenegger’s former economic policy advisor David Crane gave $37,500. Philanthropist Warren Hellman donated $50,000. Republican investor Howard Leach, who co-hosted a Prop. B fundraiser with former Mayor Willie L. Brown, gave $25,000. Investor Joseph Tobin gave $15,750. Maverick Capital partner David Singer gave $15,000. JGE Capital Partners donated  $15,000; Bechtel owner  Stephen Bechtel Jr gave $10,000: Matthew Cohler, a general partner of Benchmark Capital, donated $10,000; the California Chamber of Commerce donated $5,000 and philanthropist Dede Wilsey gave $1,000.

But records also show that Measure B opponents, which included San Francisco Firefighters, SF Police Officers Association, SF First Responders, the California Nurses Association, United Educators, San Francisco Gardeners, San Francisco Teachers, Library Workers, laguna Honda Workers, donated over $1 million in their successful bid to squash Adachi’s reform. And that just about every elected Democrat, including Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, then mayor Gavin Newsom, Sheriff Mike Hennessey, and Board President David Chiu, came out against Adachi’s original plan.
 
Haaland acknowledged that the argument could be made that the progressives’ version of the hotel tax didn’t pass and less attention was paid to the district elections last fall, because labor focused primarily on defeating Adachi’s Measure B.

“But at the end of the day, we did get the real estate transfer tax and we defeated Measure B,” Haaland observed. “So, we need to keep fighting anti-worker pressure. It’s challenging times, but I feel like the connections need to be made.”

Adachi was swift to refute Haaland’s claim that his Measure B pension reform is and was a Tea Party initiative.
“What’s not been reported is the fact that there are all these people supporting pension reform who are progressive Democrats,” Adachi said, pointing to Moritz, Crane and former Board President and Green Party member Matt Gonzalez, who all supported Measure B last fall.

“You are talking about saving basic services and that’s a progressive cause,” Adachi continued. “You might argue that pension reform isn’t a progressive solution. But then you are saying that the needs of one group of workers are subservient to the needs of other workers. And even if you raised every tax in the city, you’d not be able to keep up with pension and healthcare costs.”

“Even if we could raise parking tickets to $200 a pop, and tax folks who make more than $100,000 a year, that still wouldn’t solve the problem, because the problem is so huge,” Adachi added. “When you look at this crisis, you can’t simply redbait and say, you are a Republican, or Sarah Palin. Matt Gonzales has always spoken for progressive values, but because he supports pension reform, he’s suddenly a member of the Tea Party? At a certain point, it begins to become absurd.”

Haaland countered that he’s  “challenged by the notion that thousands show up in Wisconsin to fight some of the same people behind Measure B, but our discourse has lowered to whether or not Jeff Adachi is a good guy.”

And Adachi expressed doubt that Mayor Ed Lee can come up with a suitable pension reform plan.

“I’ve heard Lee say there has to be a solution involving pension reform and underfunded healthcare benefits that would save $300 million to $400 million in annual savings, and that corresponds with the solution he needs to come up with to close the budget deficit,” Adachi said.

Adachi said that he has met with Lee on his own to discuss pension reform, but the new mayor did not list specifics.
“He didn’t tell me what his plan was,” Adachi said, “The Prop. B supporters have a plan, but Lee did not ask what that was. But he said he sincerely wants to solve that problem, and that his preference would be one ballot initiative that everyone would agree on. And I fully support a solution that is going to truly solve the problem. I’ve always believed it’s important for the public to understand the gravity of the situation. For too long, it’s been the elephant in the room and there hasn’t been enough public information.”

Adachi said he had a beef with the idea of “groups of labor unions holding meetings at City Hall and deciding who can participate.”

“It’s also troubling that there is no information publicly available about what the ideas on the table are, no explanation of how they got there, and no documenting of the extent of the problem,” Adachi continued. “And that’s what got us here in the first place: a lack of transparency, and voters being asked to weigh in without the full information.”

Adachi said he has an upcoming meeting with Lee, the Department of Human Resources and Sup. Sean Elsbernd about pension reform that is separate from the working group that includes labor and philanthropist Warren Hellmann.

And Elsbernd told the Guardian he believes the pension reform process would go smoother if Adachi were at the table.
“I have no problem with Jeff at the table, it makes sense to have him there to avoid two ballot measures,” Elsbernd said.

Elsbernd added that it was too early to cite numbers when it comes to talk of capping pensions.
“It’s a mistake to pick a number right now because you don’t know what it’s worth,” he said, noting that the pension reform working group has sent a bunch of different scenarios to retirement actuaries to crunch the numbers to see how much they would save the city.

“I can see a case being made for asking the highest paid city workers to contribute higher amounts for healthcare benefits,” Elsbernd said. “But I’m not sure that’s equitable on retirement benefits, though I could see a situation where safety pays more, regardless, because they have better pensions.”

Ammiano goes after tax cheats

Zelda Bronstein
-
3
Ammiano goes after tax cheats

Assemblymember Tom Ammiano is moving to close a huge tax loophole that costs state and local government millons — and while his last attempt failed, this year he has a much better shot. The measure will probably make it out of the Legislature (hard to argue against something that doesn’t raise taxes at all but just makes sure nobody cheats) and I can’t imagine Jerry Brown deciding to veto it.


The bill, AB 448, would force companies that sell or transfer propetry to report it as an ownership change, which triggers a new assessment under Prop. 13. It’s one of the oldest loopholes in the book: I create a corporation or LLC to hold a piece of property, and when I want to sell, I simply transfer stock in the corporation or membership in the LLC to the buyer — and the property deed isn’t changed.


The California Tax Reform Association tracks this stuff, and you can see some examples here.


Ammiano’s been working with San Francisco Assessor Phil Ting, who told me “it’s a simple issue of fairness. Homeowners face reassessment when they buy property; why shouldn’t corporations?”


The stakes are high. It’s impossible to say how much San Francisco would pick up every year, but over time, it could be many millions of dollars (and about 57 percent of property tax revenue goes to the General Fund, the rest to the state, which returns most of it it the public schools).


Perhaps the Democrats should simply include this projected revenue in their budget; that way, Brown would have an even greater incentive to sign it.

Dense in the west

Jesse Hawthorne Ficks
-
9
Dense in the west

rebeccab@sfbg.com

A marathon special meeting of the San Francisco Planning Commission on Feb. 10 demonstrated a clear split over Parkmerced, a $1.2 billion private development project that will rebuild an entire existing neighborhood on the west side of San Francisco.

While some expressed strong enthusiasm for moving forward with the ambitious plan, many residents turned out to voice vehement opposition, citing concerns about traffic congestion, noise, dust, and the demolition of affordable apartments that some Parkmerced tenants have occupied for decades.

The votes to certify the project’s environmental analysis and send the plan onto the Board of Supervisors with a commission endorsement were split 4-3, with Commissioners Christina Olague, Hisashi Sugaya, and Kathrin Moore dissenting.

Those who voted no were appointees of the Board of Supervisors, while the four commissioners who voted in favor were appointees of former Mayor Gavin Newsom, suggesting a break along clear political lines. State Assemblymember Tom Ammiano also submitted a letter urging commissioners not to approve the project.

While Parkmerced Investors LLC, the project sponsor, eagerly awaits groundbreaking, spokesperson P.J. Johnston noted that they weren’t there yet. “First,” he said, “we have to break ground at the Board of Supervisors.”

 

IS IT GREEN?

The Parkmerced redesign has been touted as an ecological and sustainable beacon for urban development and, indeed, some features of the grand plan read as if they were plucked from a checklist from the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green-neighborhood standards.

Walkable, bikeable streets with proximity to transit? Check. Water-efficient landscaping? Check. Energy-efficient dwellings? Check. Project sponsors claim that through dramatic reductions in per capita resource consumption, three times as many residents would consume the same amount of water and electricity as Parkmerced’s current population does today.

Johnston emphasized how adding new units to the west side of the city also helped contribute to “density equality,” since most new projects tend to be concentrated in the eastern neighborhoods.

Johnston was particularly jazzed about an innovative storm-water discharge system envisioned for the plan, which he described as a design that could “regenerate and repair the environment.” It would recirculate rainwater through a naturally filtrating system of ponds and bioswales to recharge Lake Merced, a water body that has been slowly shrinking due to being choked off from its natural watershed by a concrete urban barrier.

Green points might be awarded for plans for an on-site organic garden, but Commissioner Michael Antonini, who said he lives less than a mile from Parkmerced, cautioned that developers shouldn’t get too attached to that idea. After all, he said, many kinds of vegetables won’t thrive in that part of the city.

Meanwhile, the wholesale destruction of existing units is decidedly not eco-chic. The Green Building Council’s LEED neighborhood standards insist that “historic resource preservation and adaptive reuse” is always preferable in a green development — and that’s the point that Aaron Goodman, an architect who previously lived at Parkmerced, has been driving at for more than a year. Proponents maintain that Parkmerced’s wartime construction meant it was built with inferior materials, and that property owners have battled dry rot and other infrastructure problems.

Another not-so-green Parkmerced project feature has also raised eyebrows: parking. While proponents portray the redesign as a switch from a suburban, love-affair-with-the-automobile style to an enlightened departure from car-centrism, plans nonetheless include a parking space for every single unit.

That creates the potential for more than 6,000 new cars on the road in that area, and the 19th Avenue corridor is already notorious for traffic snarls. According to calculations by the Environmental Protection Agency, the typical American motorist generates more than five metric tons of carbon dioxide by driving in a given year.

 

REPLACING WHAT’S THERE

Before the Planning Commission meeting, residents from the Parkmerced Action Coalition — a relatively new residents’ group formed to oppose the redevelopment and a wholly different entity from the Parkmerced Residents’ Organization — made a public show of their dissatisfaction outside City Hall. Holding signs with slogans such as “Don’t Bulldoze Our Homes,” residents sang protest songs and chanted, “We are Parkmerced!”

With the dramatic makeover, Parkmerced would expand to around 8,900 units, tripling the number of residents who could be accommodated. Existing 1940’s-era garden apartments would be razed to make way for higher, denser housing. The plan comes at a time when neighboring San Francisco State University is undergoing its own phase of expansion.

“This project in its current state is a vision that is not in harmony with the people, place, or the environment,” charged Cathy Lentz, an organizer with the Parkmerced Action Coalition, in a vociferous plea to the commissioners. “It is a narrow vision, a corporate vision … a true vision would be inclusive of present dwellings, inclusive of animals, trees, and present environment.”

One resident lamented the pending loss of his garden courtyard, noting how much his children had enjoyed the green space growing up and listing the different kinds of birds that would surely be driven away by heavy-duty construction and tree removal. For many, the point was not so much what developers intended to build, but what would be lost to make way for it. One speaker dismissed the plan as “architectural clear-cutting.”

Commissioner Moore, an architect, sounded a similar note when she rejected the notion that the Parkmerced redevelopment should be hailed as infill, a desirable development concept that curbs sprawl by utilizing space efficiently. “Urban infill housing is defined as infill on vacant sites,” Moore said, “not sites that have become vacant by demolition.” She added that she believed the environmental impact review “fails to sufficiently examine why housing demolition is even necessary.”

In Moore’s view, “the only reasonable alternative is a significantly redesigned … project.”

 

WORKING-CLASS NEIGHBORHOOD

Unlike a luxury condominium development, the Parkmerced plan emphasizes built-in economic diversity — yet critics point out that as it stands, the housing complex is already inclusive of many lower-income, working-class residents.

The plan will incorporate several hundred below-market rate units, in accordance with the city’s inclusionary zoning ordinance. Commissioner Antonini also emphasized the boost to city coffers from tax revenue associated with the project.

Meanwhile, questions are still arising on the issue of rent control. “We do not believe it is appropriate for the City and County of San Francisco to be displacing rent-controlled residents,” noted Michael Yarne, a mayoral development advisor. A binding agreement between Parkmerced Investors LLC and the city of San Francisco, which will be linked to the land, promises that new units will be made available to rent-controlled tenants at the same monthly rate they now pay, with rent control intact (See “Weighing a Landlord’s Promise,” Dec. 21, 2010).

Yet Polly Marshall, a commissioner on the San Francisco Rent Board, noted that she still didn’t believe tenant protections were adequate. She also spoke to the pitfalls of tearing down and redoing an entire neighborhood.

“The proposed Parkmerced development is the kind of development that I normally would support. It’s the kind of thing I work on in my profession,” noted Marshall, an attorney who has worked on redevelopment projects. “What’s different about this project is that it involves an existing community. It requires devastation of that community. It reminds me of the old-style redevelopment projects that went on in the Fillmore that destroyed existing neighborhoods. Look around that area now … there’s high density housing there, but that’s about all. The community — the networks of the people — was destroyed decades ago.”

Marshall took it a step further, offering her analysis on why Parkmerced was targeted. “It’s because it’s a working-class neighborhood of renters,” she said. “That’s why we’re going to destroy Parkmerced.”

Jerry Hill grandstands on local hire

Zelda Bronstein
-
15
Jerry Hill grandstands on local hire

Assemblymember Jerry Hill — who’s facing term limits and reapportionment — has launched a pretty silly attack on San Francisco’s local hire law. He wants to make sure that no state money is used on local-hire projects (because the San Mateo County folks are mad about it.)


But the law doesn’t apply to projects funded with state money anyway, and it only mandates 50 percent local hire, and Hill’s bill will probably go down the crapper because the San Francisco legislators, who have a fair amount of clout up in Sacramento these days, aren’t going to support it. Assemblymember Tom Ammiano and state Sens. Mark Leno and Leland Yee have all signed a letter supporting the city’s local hire law.


And, of course, the Hill bill could mess with local hire efforts elsewhere.


Looks like a cheap publicity stunt to me.


Also in the Chron’s news briefs: A plan to raise the salaries of School Board members may make it to the ballot in San Francisco. I’ve been pushing this for years. It’s crazy to pay $500 a month to people who oversee a half-billion budget and do one of the most important jobs in the city — a job that by any account is a full-time-occupation. Yeah, it seems crazy to spend money on school board salaries when the district is laying off teachers, but some very good board members have quit because they can’t afford to have a job, a family and a seat on the School Board, and that’s nuts.


 

Division of labor

Jesse Hawthorne Ficks
-
0
Division of labor

sarah@sfbg.com


In the wake of a three-day protest by unemployed workers outside UCSF’s Mission Bay hospital construction site — and under pressure from city leaders — UC officials have announced voluntary local hiring targets at the $1.5 billion complex.


Targets start at hiring 20 percent of the project’s workers in San Francisco during 2011 and increase that by 5 percent each year until the hospital complex is completed, UCSF news director Amy Pyle told us. But she denies that UC was pressured into its decision. UC is a state agency that is exempt from local rules when it builds facilities for UCSF and other campuses.


“Our voluntary goals are not a result of their protest,” Pyle insisted. “We have been aware of the local hire concerns since before they were protesting.”


The protests have focused on the need to hire workers for southeast San Francisco, where unemployment rates are the highest in the city, particularly among the city’s African American population.


“Of course we are looking to be good neighbors and hire people from an area we know has been hard hit,” Pyle said, clarifying that under the University of California’s hiring program, “local residents mean people who live in San Francisco generally.”


Mission Bay Hospitals Projects executive director Cindy Lima said uproar at the site stemmed in part from perceptions that lots of work is available now, but she said that isn’t true.


“Job opportunities should ramp up in May, but right now, they are installing structural piles,” Lima said. “So if there is an opportunity for a carpenter or a laborer to get decks built, we call the union.” UC’s voluntary local hire announcement came after Mayor Ed Lee urged UC officials to formalize a community hiring plan for Mission Bay, and Aboriginal Blackmen United (ABU) president James Richards agreed to call off his group’s protest outside UC’s Mission Bay hospital complex, at least for now.


ABU member Fred Green, an unemployed construction worker who has lived in the Bayview for 50 years and has five children, said the protesters tried to remain peaceful. “But an empty belly makes you do strange things,” Green said. “If there’s enough work for everybody, why should we be stuck at home while someone comes into my community and takes food out of my kids’ mouths?”


Troy Moor, who has lived in the Bayview for 47 years and has two kids, speculated that if ABU blocked both gates to the project, it would cost UC thousands of dollars a day in lost productivity. “Here at the front gates, we are visible. But we figure that if by next week, nothing is happening, we’ll start making them lose money,” he said.


Michelle Carrington is a 58-year-old flagger and operating engineer from the Bayview who has been unemployed for 10 years. She said Dwayne Jones, who worked in the Mayor’s Office and helped her graduate from Young Community Developers, was “working to try and get us jobs.”


Jones, who is now with Platinum Advisors as a consultant to DPR Construction, UC’s prime contractor at its Mission Bay site, put in an appearance on day three of ABU’s protest. But he said his work with DPR had nothing to do with the ABU protest.


“UC is very committed to maximizing local hire where we can,” Lima told the Guardian. “It’s unfortunate there is a protest because it gives the sense we haven’t been working with the community when in fact we have been working with the Mayor’s Office, CityBuild, and every stakeholder interested in this project, including ABU.”


Richards said ABU mounted its protest to challenge UC’s claims that it has hired more local residents at the site. They were also angry over a flyer that encouraged residents interested in working at the site to sign up with the San Francisco Workforce Collaborative, in partnership with Rev. Arelious Walker’s BayView Hope Community Development Corporation, feeling as if the UC was trying to divide their community. Walker did not return our calls for comment.


“We were with Walker when he was fighting the Nation of Islam’s attempt to stop development at the shipyard, so it hurts so bad to see this,” Richards said. “Never again will we stand by and let people come into the southeast community and take our jobs. We’re going to fight until the end. If the community doesn’t work, no one works.”


But even as UC announced its voluntary Mission Bay goals, community advocates pressed UCSF to set higher targets, citing the city’s failure to attain 50 percent local hire goals under San Francisco’s decade-long policy of seeking to hit that goal.


Joshua Arce of the Brightline Defense Project said he is glad Lee expressed support for Sup. John Avalos’ local hire legislation, “but we are waiting to see if he implements the law as written or a watered-down version.”


Then-Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed Avalos’ legislation to become law without signing it, bowing to the veto-proof 8-3 majority that approved it. But in a 12/23/10 letter explaining his position, Newsom recommended modifications to accommodate the concerns of the building trades, whose members come from across the Bay Area.


“I know the passage of this policy has created high expectations among some residents of San Francisco,” Newsom wrote. “The city owes it to them to implement this policy in a way that will result in a successful program that is fiscally responsible and reflects the best thinking of the many stakeholders invested in San Francisco.”


But with Newsom moving to Sacramento, California Assembly member Tom Ammiano and Sens. Mark Leno and Leland Yee are urging legislators to support San Francisco’s newly approved local hire law as approved.


In a Jan. 25 letter that Leno and Yee signed, Ammiano encouraged Bay Area officials to work with the city to explore mutually beneficial “reciprocity agreements” in which local cities would support one another’s programs “aimed at providing disadvantaged job seekers opportunities in the construction sector.”


“In neighborhoods like the Bayview, the Mission, and the Western Addition, the promise of jobs — particularly living wage construction jobs — has been an unfulfilled promise for generations,” Ammiano wrote.


But in a Jan. 28 press release, UC officials clarified that “as one of 10 campuses of a statewide constitutional corporation and public trust,” UCSF is not subject to Avalos’ mandatory requirement and is prohibited from adopting mandatory requirements based upon residency.


Instead, UC promised to do more community outreach and try to carve out financial incentives to encourage contractors to hit UC’s targets at Mission Bay.


Lima said the hospital complex is a historic opportunity to put as many San Franciscans to work as possible. “We have set an ambitious hiring target but we recognize that the economic activity generated by the project can significantly benefit our neighbors and local residents,” she said


After his Jan. 27 meeting with UC, Richards told ABU members that “when DPR needs someone for a job, they’re gonna call Dwayne Jones, and then Dwayne will let us know. There are hundreds of jobs, but I don’t know if they are in every trade. So, I feel good. But not so good that I can say that 10 carpenters will be hired tomorrow. There’s not enough need for that right now. But the work that’s there, when they call, you’re going to know it.”


Lima said UC’s meeting with Richards was “positive”.


“We clarified some misunderstandings and made some progress,” Lima said, noting that work at the site will become increasingly available starting in May. “Our goal is still to create jobs for San Francisco residents and make this project happen. We are continuing to try and match people who need to go to work with available job opportunities. The bottom line is that there are a lot of people in this city who are out of work and a lot of groups with different intentions in mind and we get tangled in that process.”


Lima vowed to work closely with DPR Construction and major subcontractors to ensure qualified local residents — including those from neighborhoods closest to the site — can access the construction jobs. And she promised that results will be reported regularly and the size of the workforce will increase steadily, peaking with 1,000 workers in 2012.


“We are mindful that while these goals challenge us, they are also within reach,” Lima said, noting that UCSF has been engaged in creating job opportunities in the construction trades for San Franciscans since 1993. “Our success will depend on the participation and commitment of the broader community and the trade unions.”


UC’s move comes less than two weeks after Lee announced at the annual San Francisco Labor Council Martin Luther King Jr. Day breakfast that one of his top priorities is implementing Avalos’ mandatory local hire policy.


Lee’s comments suggest a different approach from Newsom’s, but it’s still not clear whether Lee intends to follow the “critical steps” that Newsom felt the city should take “to ensure the responsible and successful implementation of Avalos’ legislation.”


Arce said he was happy to see Lee address the issue at the MLK Day event. “Lee said that if we are using local dollars to create local jobs, those jobs should go to local workers,” Arce recalled, noting that the following week Lee started to coordinate with the Office of Economic and Workforce Development and CityBuild to engage community stakeholders and lay out a road map to implement Avalos’ legislation.


“They set a deadline of March 25 as the target date by which the language of Avalos’ mandatory legislation must be included in all public bids and contracts,” Arce said. “And it’s our understanding that Mayor Lee called UC Chancellor Susan Desmond-Hellmann directly on the morning of Jan. 27 [before ABU’s Richards met with UC officials] to ask that UCSF formalize a community hiring plan for Mission Bay as soon as possible.”


Avalos said he was “very encouraged” by Lee’s remarks. “To say that at the Martin Luther King Labor Breakfast was a big deal,” Avalos said, noting that the building trades were also in the room. “I feel Ed Lee wants to implement the legislation how it is written. He needs help doing that. He needs to create a process to make it happen, and I believe the folks who helped draft the legislation will be ready to do that. That’s not to say that this couldn’t go wrong, but I feel pretty confident that he will implement as strong a local hire model as possible.”

1...8910...32Page 9 of 32

48hills.org is the official publication of the non-profit San Francisco Progressive Media Center.
Contact us: info@48hills.org