Rebecca Bowe

A ‘reasonable’ cheek swab

Andrew Lam
-
7
A ‘reasonable’ cheek swab

Rebecca@sfbg.com

On June 3, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it’s legal for law enforcement to collect DNA samples from people who are arrested — even when the individuals taken into custody are never convicted of a crime. The justices were narrowly split, and the decision immediately drew criticism from civil liberties advocates like American Civil Liberties Union, who characterized it as a blow to American’s Fourth Amendment right to privacy.

Does the historic ruling carry implications for law enforcement practices in California? Not exactly. As it turns out, current state law allows police to collect DNA samples through cheek swabbing on a far more routine basis than in Maryland, where only a handful of serious offenses can trigger this kind of search. And in the Golden State, fewer protections are in place for arrestees.

The Supreme Court issued its ruling with a narrow 5-4 vote. “The majority’s take was that cheek-swabbing is reasonable … even without any suspicion of wrongdoing by the arrestee, because the intrusion is minimal, the arrestee has less of an expectation of privacy than a typical citizen, and the state has a strong interest in using DNA to identify people,” explained Andrea Roth, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and founding member of a group that studied and litigated forensic DNA typing.

In contrast, Roth said, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia “was concerned that this is the first time that we’ve ever allowed searches of someone’s body, without any type of individualized suspicion, for the purpose of general crime-solving. He thought that was a line the Constitution draws in the sand, and that the law is on the wrong side of that line.”

Despite drawing a scathing critique from a conservative Supreme Court justice, Maryland’s system for the collection and use of DNA is actually much narrower in scope than the law that went into effect in California in 2004, when Proposition 69 passed.

Maryland’s law “only applies to a limited number of offenses, it doesn’t apply at all to people who are simply arrested but not charged, and they can only make use of the sample after there’s been a judicial finding of probable cause,” Michael Risher, a lawyer with the Northern California Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, told us.

“California doesn’t have any of those safeguards,” Risher added. “It’s a different law.”

2.1 MILLION SAMPLES

When Prop. 69 was approved, California voters initially sanctioned DNA collection from people convicted of felony offenses. But on January 1, 2009, a different provision of that initiative kicked in, expanding it to allow police to collect DNA samples from “any adult person” arrested for “any felony offense,” regardless of whether that person is ever charged or convicted of a crime.

When used as a form of identification, DNA samples are processed to yield a 26-number sequence that aids law enforcement in verifying suspects’ identities.

Once they’re collected and used to produce unique identifiers, those cotton-swabbed samples aren’t destroyed; instead, they remain in the hands of a state agency. “The problem is that the state keeps your samples,” Roth said. “It’s not like they develop the 26-number profile and then throw the rest of the sample in the trash. So if you’re in a database, state officials still have your entire DNA strand.”

According to the California Department of Justice, since the start of the program, the DNA data bank had received and logged more than 2.1 million samples as of March 31. The data bank is shared with the National DNA Index System (NDIS), part of the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), which is linked to federal records.

In its decision, the nation’s highest court determined that “taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure.”

Yet civil liberties advocates point out that the information contained in a DNA sample can reveal much more about an individual than either a fingerprint or a unique identifier generated from a sample.

“There’s a basic difference between your DNA and your fingerprint,” Risher explains. “Your fingerprint doesn’t tell you anything about yourself. And your DNA is your genetic blueprint. The profile that they generate might not say a lot about you … but they are keeping these physical samples. Current law says they can’t be tested for sensitive things, but laws change, and people can violate them.”

And a properly preserved DNA sample can last hundreds of thousands of years — essentially forever.

ANTI-WAR PROTESTER ASKED FOR DNA

Lily Haskell has been fighting the state of California over DNA collection ever since her arrest in March of 2009, at an anti-war demonstration in downtown San Francisco. Held to commemorate the anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, the protest was staged in Civic Center Plaza. “With no prior warning, police charged the crowd, penned us in, arrested us, and charged us with trying to incite a riot,” she told us.

But hours later, after she and a handful of others had been processed at the San Francisco County Jail, Haskell was summoned from her holding cell and presented with what struck her as an odd request. Although she says she had already been fingerprinted, and her identity already confirmed, an officer “told me I had to provide a DNA sample.”

Her first instinct was to decline. “I didn’t believe it was just to have to comply with that,” she said. “I told them I believed it was my right to refuse.” Haskell was told that if she continued to resist the sample collection, she’d be charged with a misdemeanor and would likely spend a few additional nights in jail. So she relented.

Although she was neither charged with a crime nor tried for a felony or any other offense after being released from jail 24 hours later, Haskell’s DNA sample remains in the state databank. Now she’s a lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed by the ACLU.

Haskell said she’s never tried to get her DNA expunged from the state database, because she sees her participation in the lawsuit as an important challenge to a law she views as unjust. “I don’t want my DNA to be held,” Haskell says, “and I don’t want anybody else’s DNA to be held, either.”

Individuals who have tried to go the route of having DNA samples removed have found it can be tedious. “In California, the process of getting your DNA out of a database if your case ends in dismissal or acquittal is an onerous one,” Roth explained. “You have to pay your own filing and attorney fees, you have to wait until the statute of limitations has run, the judge has complete discretion to deny your motion, and you can’t appeal the judge’s decision.”

Legal upshot still unclear

Meanwhile, ACLU attorneys in Northern California were closely watching the Supreme Court case, Maryland v. King, to see how it might affect their class-action challenge to Prop. 69, a case known as Haskell v. Harris. Although a divided panel of Ninth Circuit judges upheld the law in February of 2012, the court took the unusual step last July of voting to rehear the case en banc, with a nine-judge panel. However, the court issued an order after oral arguments saying it wouldn’t issue a ruling until King had been decided in the Supreme Court.

“Yes, they will have to do something with our case — but what they do is actually up to them,” Risher explained. “There’s no binding opinion in our case right now. Everything was up in the air waiting for King to be decided.”

Risher added that in future arguments, the ACLU plans to highlight the differences between Maryland’s DNA collection law and California’s far broader Prop. 69. “If King was a 5-4 decision with a law that was so narrowly focused, with those safeguards,” he said, “well okay — this one crosses the line.”

Icelandic MP Birgitta Jónsdóttir talks asylum options for NSA whistleblower

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
19

Birgitta Jónsdóttir is waiting for Edward Snowden to drop her a line.

The Icelandic Member of Parliament and Wikileaks supporter happens to be in San Francisco at the moment, working to raise awareness about the trial of Wikileaks whistleblower Bradley Manning, and preparing for a speaking engagement this evening where she’ll appear alongside Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971.

Snowden, meanwhile, is presumed to be somewhere in Hong Kong – but as of the most recent media reports, his exact whereabouts were unknown (at least to reporters). Snowden is the 29-year-old former employee of intelligence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, who came forward Sunday as the source responsible for leaking top-secret U.S. government documents to The Guardian (UK) and The Washington Post revealing a widespread digital surveillance program.

Jónsdóttir’s International Modern Media Institute issued a statement on June 9 vowing to “discuss the details of his asylum request” and to investigate the legal and security implications of the Iceland option.

“I have not gotten into contact with him,” Jónsdóttir said in a phone interview with the Bay Guardian this morning. “But … we have sent out the message that he can be in contact with us if he chooses, to let us know exactly what he wants.”

She added, “I’m quite concerned, because there are no direct flights to Iceland. … I’m just worried about the extradition process in other countries – if he needs to do a layover, or if we’re not quick enough to grant him asylum. And, frankly speaking, one of the parties in the government in Iceland is never going to agree to support it. So, it’s tricky.”

There may be better places for Snowden to seek asylum, Jónsdóttir added, but she and others are still investigating the possibilities. “I don’t know if Ecuador can take any more refugees from the political prisoners of the information age,” she said, referencing the country that granted Wikileaks founder Julian Assange political asylum, and has granted him residency in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for a year.

“But I really think emphasis in this case should be on all this heavy sentencing on … whistleblowers and people that are doing research and trying to bring information into the public domain,” Jónsdóttir said. “I feel this is more like a witch hunt than the ordinary justice system,” she added, “if you look at the crimes they’re accused to have done, which in many people’s opinion, are not crimes at all.”

For now, it’s still too early to say where Snowden will ultimately wind up. “The ball is in his hands,” Jónsdóttir said. “In the meantime, we will check out all the legalities and possibilities. We would obviously have to do it through secure ways. We have reached out to [journalist] Glenn [Greenwald] and James Ball, who has also been writing about this for The Guardian. And we’ll see if we get a message from him or if we can communicate directly. As soon as we have any information, we will make a statement.”

NSA spying on Verizon calls is nothing new

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
18

So, the federal government is spying on millions of Americans. Still. And this time, there’s a document to prove it.

In a momentous scoop by journalist Glenn Greenwald, the UK Guardian has published a top secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order requiring Verizon to turn over all call records to the National Security Agency.

It does not matter if you are suspected of wrongdoing, or what your political beliefs are. It’s now been confirmed that if you are a Verizon subscriber, your “telephony metadata” is being handed over the NSA, “on an ongoing daily basis,” along with the records of millions of other subscribers.

What can this metadata reveal about a telecom subscriber?

“Every call made, the location of the phone, the time of the call, the duration of the call, and other ‘identifying information’ for the phone and call,” according to this cogent explanation provided by Electronic Frontier Foundation attorneys Cindy Cohn and Mark Rumold (in full disclosure, my former coworkers). Take a moment to let that sink in. We’re not just talking about every number dialed, but the geographic location of every phone.

Further raising eyebrows: “There is no indication that this order to Verizon was unique or novel,” Cohn and Rumold note. “It is very likely that business records orders like this exist for every major American telecommunication company, meaning that, if you make calls in the United States, the NSA has those records.” (Emphasis mine.)

President Barack Obama has defended the practice, calling it “a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats to the United States.” 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said at a news conference in D.C. that the court order in question “is a three-month renewal of an ongoing practice,” according to the Associated Press.

Former Vice President Al Gore tweeted that the domestic surveillance program is “obscenely outrageous.” More than 16,000 people have signed an emergency petition urging Congress to “investigate,” while the American Civil Liberties Union has launched a petition calling on the Obama Administration to stop it already.

Amid the well-founded outrage over a document conclusively revealing a widespread domestic spying program, what’s really fascinating is the ho-hum response of two whistleblowers formerly employed by the NSA, who went on Democracy Now! and basically said, duh, what took the mainstream media so long to notice? 

“Where has the mainstream media been? These are routine orders, nothing new,” Thomas Drake told program host Amy Goodman. “What’s new is we’re seeing an actual order. And people are somehow surprised by it. The fact remains that this program has been in place for quite some time. It was actually started shortly after 9/11. The Patriot Act was the enabling mechanism that allowed the United States government in secret to acquire subscriber records from any company.”

NSA whistleblower William Binney chimed in: “NSA has been doing all this stuff all along, and it’s been all the companies, not just one. And I basically looked at [the top secret order] and said, well, if Verizon got one, so did everybody else, which means that, you know, they’re just continuing the collection of this kind of information on all U.S. citizens. … There’s just—in my estimate, it was—if you collapse it down to all uniques, it’s a little over 280 million U.S. citizens are in there, each in there several hundred to several thousand times.”

The publication of this court order also came less as a revelation, and more of a confirmation of what they’ve been saying all along, for San Francisco-based EFF attorneys, who have been mired in a legal battle against the NSA on warrantless wiretapping for the better part of a decade.

(Things started to get rolling on that front on Jan. 20, 2006, when former AT&T employee Mark Klein waltzed into EFF’s office clutching a manila envelope containing technical corporate documents, “detailing the construction of the NSA’s secret spying room in AT&T’s San Francisco facility” on Folsom Street.)

“This type of untargeted, wholly domestic surveillance is exactly what EFF, and others, have been suing about for years,” Cohn and Rumold remind us.

Legally speaking, much of this debate pertains to Section 215 of the U.S. Patriot Act, which the federal government has relied upon to claim it has legal authority to conduct mass surveillance of communications.

In May of 2011, Sen. Ron Wyden issued a cryptic warning during a debate about the reauthorization of Section 215. “I want to deliver a warning this afternoon,” Wyden said. “When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry.”

Has that day arrived?

SFPD responds (weirdly) to allegations of racial disparity

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
49

The San Francisco Police Department has issued a head-scratching response to charges of racial disparity in marijuana arrests, possibly in an attempt to defuse controversy over a recent incident that already has some members of the African American community up in arms.

This latest flap started Monday, when the New York Times ran a piece about an American Civil Liberties Union analysis finding that nationwide, Black Americans were four times more likely to be arrested than white people on charges of marijuana possession in 2010.

On Tuesday, the East Bay Express drew attention to that report. Then, the Chronicle ran a story suggesting that racial disparity in marijuana arrests extends to San Francisco – a city where white people have such affinity for weed that they’re known to congregate in droves not only on Hippie Hill but also Dolores Park to commemorate 4/20 with collective puffs of smoke.

The Chronicle piece seizes on 2010 data to back up its claim, noting:

“Black residents made up 6 percent of San Francisco’s population in 2010 while whites comprised 55 percent. The ACLU report said that of 298 marijuana possession arrests that year, 99 were black suspects and 195 were white suspects.” This would appear to suggest that a disproportionate number of Black suspects were arrested for marijuana possession. The Chron also pointed out, “the ACLU’s report analyzed arrest data from 2001 through 2010.”

Earlier today, the SFPD issued a response, apparently attempting to set the local press straight. It states: “This is not so. The San Francisco Police Department does not racially profile.”

To back up its claim, officers in the SFPD’s Media Relations Unit wrote: 

“In 2011, the SFPD made over 23,000 arrests, of which 14,000 were classified as misdemeanors. Today, Chief [Greg] Suhr reviewed all 11 misdemeanor marijuana arrest reports from 2011. All 11 misdemeanor marijuana charges were secondary to other charges, e.g., outstanding warrants, weapons possession, drunk in public, for which the person (four white males, three black males, two black females, one Hispanic male, and one white female) were arrested and booked. It is evident that the misdemeanor marijuana arrests cited in the article were made using sound police procedure pertaining to criminal activity and not by racial profiling.”

But this response fails to address the ACLU’s findings head on. If the New York Times and Chronicle pieces specifically hinged on 2010 figures, why did Suhr review data from 2011? The only hint comes in the SFPD statement, which notes that 2011 “was Chief Suhr’s first year as chief.”

SF homeless services budget item < 0.25 percent of Larry Ellison’s net worth

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
30

Billionaire Larry Ellison, the vainglorious CEO of Oracle and yachtsman responsible for bringing the America’s Cup to San Francisco, has come a long way since 2010, when he first floated the idea of hosting the elite regatta against a Golden Gate backdrop.

On Forbes’ 2010 list of the world’s wealthiest individuals, Ellison’s estimated net worth of $28 billion earned him a spot in sixth place. That amount gave him a slight edge over the current GDP of Panama, but the superrich seafarer is doing waaaaay better than that Central American nation these days. On the 2013 Forbes roster, the tech mogul rose to No. 5, and his estimated net worth had ballooned considerably, to an estimated $43 billion.

As it happens, the additional $15 billion Ellison managed to attract in the last three years is nearly twice the total spending plan unveiled by San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee last week, when he presented the largest proposed city budget in history.

Lee made a point of noting in press statements that he’d taken pains to preserve social services; even tossing an additional $3.8 million toward funding for homeless prevention and housing subsidies. Nevertheless, some dust seems to be kicking up over how equitably Lee would have public dollars distributed across the board.

With the America’s Cup looming on the horizon, the mayor’s budget now awaiting supervisors’ review, and an ever-widening gulf between the haves and the have-nots in San Francisco, we began to ponder: Just how does Ellison’s wealth compare to the amount spent on, say, homeless services in San Francisco?

In Lee’s proposed 2014-2015 budget, “homeless services” is allotted $101,669,214 via the Human Services Agency, about $1.5 million less than the amount included in the city’s 2013-2014 budget. 

That figure could also be expressed as 0.236 percent of Ellison’s estimated net worth. Decimal dust.

Within a week or so, we’re told, the Human Services Agency will release an updated estimate of the city’s homeless population, along with historical comparisons suggesting whether the ranks of the un-housed has grown or waned in recent years. Weeks after that, San Francisco’s waterfront will be transformed by a sporting event that only the superrich can afford to compete in.

No security

Andrew Lam
-
3
No security

rebeccab@sfbg.com

To qualify for his job as a security officer, Jerry Longoria had to obtain a license, undergo a background check, and take a drug test. He’s required to wear a suit to work. He’s stationed at a downtown San Francisco high rise that houses Deloitte, a multinational consulting, finance, and real-estate firm that reported $31.3 billion in revenues last year. His employer is Universal Protection Services, a nationwide security contractor with a slick online marketing pitch emphasizing that all guards are “electronically supervised around the clock,” and “kept accountable on the job through our 24-hour command center.”

If an intruder showed up at his office building brandishing a firearm, it would be Longoria’s problem; that’s the job. Nevertheless, he says he doesn’t earn enough to cover rent for an apartment in San Francisco. Instead, he stays in a single room occupancy hotel near Sixth and Mission streets, an area known for a high rate of violent crime. Walking home still wearing the suit makes him stand out on the street.

He’s lived in the 150-unit building, which has shared bathrooms and a shared basement-level kitchen, for 11 years. “It’s affordable for me, and it allows me to be closer to work,” he explains. He can’t afford a car, and says a public transit delay could prove disastrous if he relocated outside the city. “If you’re late to your post, you get fired.”

At press time, about 7,000 security officers throughout the Bay Area and Los Angeles were gearing up for a strike that could begin any day. Members of United Service Workers West, affiliated with Service Employees International Union, authorized their bargaining committee to call for the work stoppage because officers have been without a contract since the end of 2012.

The starting wage for a security officer is $14 an hour in the city, which comes to slightly more than $29,000 a year before taxes. In some places that would be sufficient to meet basic needs. In San Francisco, where the median market rate on rental units recently peaked above $3,000 a month, it doesn’t go very far. “With the cost of living here in San Francisco, $14 an hour is simply not enough to make ends meet,” Kevin O’Donnell, a USWW spokesperson, told us.

The security officers’ threats to strike coincided with a second worker action in the Bay Area last week. Despite lacking any form of union representation, Walmart associates from stores in Richmond, Fremont, and San Leandro affiliated with the nationwide organization OUR Walmart joined 100 employees from across the country in walking off the job and caravanning to Bentonville, Arkansas to raise awareness about their poverty-level wages and insufficient benefits at Walmart’s annual shareholders’ meeting. But first, they paid a visit to the Four Seasons in downtown San Francisco, which houses the 38th floor penthouse apartment of Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer, a Walmart director.

Despite seeking full-time working opportunities and staying with the company for years, a handful of associates we interviewed said they can’t earn enough at Walmart to cover basic needs, so they rely on government assistance or help from extended family to make ends meet. Some said they had witnessed their coworkers get fired after participating in OUR Walmart activities.

Walmart associates in the Bay Area are in a considerably more precarious situation than the security officers, earning lower hourly wages. But in the pricey Bay Area, security officers, Walmart employees, and scores of other low-wage private sector workers all share something in common. Despite reporting to work every day and working long hours in many cases, they’re forced into impoverished conditions due to economic circumstances, while a middle-class existence remains far out of reach.

FIGHTING FOR STABILITY

ABM Security and Universal Protection Services are the largest employers in the private security contractor industry; in the Bay Area, the majority of guards are stationed at office buildings in downtown San Francisco. On May 30, Supervisors John Avalos, David Campos, David Chiu, Jane Kim and Scott Wiener all voiced support for the guards at a rally outside City Hall. “Better working conditions for security officers mean more stable, family-supporting jobs, less turnover, and more ability to handle challenges at work,” Avalos said.

Matt Roberts has been working as a security officer for years, and originally moved into his unit in a San Francisco SRO in a financial pinch. “I figured, I’ll get out of this rut eventually. And here I am, seven years later, still paying $1,000 a month for a space that’s really not much bigger than a walk-in closet,” he told us. Roberts was terminated recently, and believes it’s because he spoke up to his site director about workplace issues his fellow guards felt needed to be addressed.

In Roberts’ view, the situation he’s found himself in is reflective of the broader erosion of the middle class, which is particularly acute in an area with a soaring cost of living. He was born and raised in San Francisco’s Crocker Amazon district, with a father who worked as a firefighter and a mother who worked as a clerk typist at the Cow Palace.

“They were able to achieve the American dream,” he said. “They had a house, they paid their mortgage off in 25 years, they were able to send me and all my three siblings to good schools. I realized when I was still in my 20s that I’m probably going to be a renter the rest of my life. The American dream is totally eclipsing my generation.”

Keven Adams, a security officer of 23 years who lives in Oakland, also attended the City Hall rally on May 30. “We’re fighting for wages, health care, and stability in the workplace,” Adams said. “We’re in a city we love so very much, but the community and the middle class is shrinking.” Adams said he was once held at gunpoint for four hours during a work shift. He’d love to live in San Francisco, he said, but can’t afford it.

According to a June 3 media advisory, unions throughout the Bay Area were preparing to demonstrate support for the security officers as they geared up to strike. “The support could come in the form of workers attending rallies, non-violent civil disobedience or perhaps even non-security workers refusing to cross picket lines,” according to USWW, “and walking off their own jobs in solidarity.”

‘STAND UP, LIVE BETTER’

Among the small group of protesters who had assembled on the sidewalk far below Mayer’s San Francisco penthouse on May 29 were associates who had taken the drastic and unusual step of going on strike from Walmart — the nation’s largest private employer. Clad in bright green shirts and waving signs, they chanted, “stand up, live better,” a play on Walmart’s slogan, and also, “What do we want? Respect.”

Dominic Ware, who works part-time at a Walmart in San Leandro, led chants and sounded off on a megaphone about the need for greater respect in the workplace. Ware, who’s been involved with OUR Walmart activities on a national level, said he earns $8.65 an hour and stays with his grandmother, since his paycheck isn’t enough to cover rent. He estimated that roughly half his earnings go directly back to Wal-Mart, where he purchases groceries and other basic items. Asked what motivated him to strike, Ware mentioned his daughter, who turned eight on June 1. “What if she has to work there some day?”

He added that some elderly colleagues were experiencing problems such as being unable to get a shift changed so as to catch a bus home at the end of the night. Another one of his coworkers was let go after it became clear to management that he was participating in OUR Walmart activities, Ware said.

While only a tiny fraction of Walmart’s 1.4 million workers took action to strike, their campaign appears to resonate in high places. A report recently released by the Democratic staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce seized on Walmart’s low wages, emphasizing that so many of its workers are forced to turn to government assistance that it is resulting in a collective drag on taxpayers.

“Rising income inequality and wage stagnation threaten the future of America’s middle class,” the report notes. “While corporate profits break records, the share of national income going to workers’ wages has reached record lows. Walmart plays a leading role in this story. Its business model has long relied upon strictly controlled labor costs: low wages, inconsiderable benefits and aggressive avoidance of collective bargaining with its employees. As the largest private-sector employer in the U.S., Wal-Mart’s business model exerts considerable downward pressure on wages throughout the retail sector and the broader economy.”

Alerts

Andrew Lam
-
0

THURSDAY 6

Resisting gentrification in San Francisco The Green Arcade bookstore, 1680 Market, SF. www.thegreenarcade.com. 7-8:30pm, free. San Francisco author and political economist Karl Beitel will discuss his new book, Local Protest, Global Movements: Capital, Community, and State in San Francisco, which chronicles the history of anti-gentrification and housing rights activism in the city. The book focuses on the broader historical, political and global context of urban movements. Book talk followed by discussion.

Patent pending: The rise of GM humans Brower Center’s Goldman Theater, 2150 Allston, Berk. www.browercenter.org. 7:30pm, free. In 1997, New York Medical College cell biologist Stuart Newman applied for a patent on a “humanzee” — part human, part chimp — to call attention to the ethical hazards of biotech patenting. Last year, researchers in the UK and US sought approval for creating and implanting genetically modified (GM) human embryos. What is the state of human genetic modification? What is at stake for the species? Join Stuart Newman, PhD, in conversation with Milton Reynolds of Facing History and Ourselves for this talk, part of an East Bay Conversations series on the Promises and Perils of Biotechnology.

SATURDAY 8

Tenth anniversary World Naked Bike Ride Justin Herman Plaza, 1 Market, SF. 10:30am-4:30pm. Organizers of San Francisco’s Tenth Anniversary World Naked Bike Ride are hoping for the largest turnout yet. Meet on the northeast side of Vaillancourt Fountain at 10:30 AM to spend half an hour primping with body and face paint, then get ready to ride as bare as you dare. Route will pass through Fisherman’s Wharf, the Marina, Lombard, North Beach, the Embarcadero, the Civic Center, the Haight, past Golden Gate Park, and finally to Ocean Beach. The WNBR is part of a global against oil dependency.

TUESDAY 11

Our vanishing civil liberties St. John’s Presbyterian Church, 2727 College Avenue, Berk. 7:30-9:30pm, free. This panel talk on the erosion of civil liberties will feature Birgitta Jonsdottir, a member of Icelandic Parliament, Wikileaks and Bradley Manning supporter, and poet; Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame; and Nadia Kayyali of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee. Panelists will hit on concerns such as indefinite detention, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), police militarization, and the prosecution of whistleblowers.

Activists to governor: Please un-frack California

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
4

A statewide coalition of more than 100 environmental organizations has formed to pressure California Gov. Jerry Brown to ban fracking – an environmentally harmful oil extraction method technically known as hydraulic fracturing.

On May 30, environmental activists from the Center for Biological Diversity, Credo Action, Food and Water Watch, Environment California and other nonprofits rallied outside the state building on Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco to launch the campaign and hand-deliver stacks of petitions calling on Brown to put an end to the practice. The action coincided with a similar show of opposition to fracking at the state building in Los Angeles.

Fracking has already taken off in Pennsylvania and North Dakota, and has the potential to transform vast swaths of landscape in California, where a geologic formation known as the Monterey Shale is estimated to contain some 15 billion barrels of oil.

With chants of “Jerry Brown, take a stand, don’t let frackers ruin our land,” the activists waved signs proclaiming, “Don’t frack California.”

“In California, water is more precious than oil,” said Becky Bond, political director at Credo Action. “It’s not just a question of will this produce some jobs.”

Bond added that the activists were targeting Brown because “we know that special interests have so much more influence in the Legislature than they do in the governor’s mansion.” And besides, she added, “even if good legislation passes, it ends up on the governor’s desk.”

Earlier in the week in Sacramento, legislation that would have imposed an indefinite moratorium on fracking was scaled back, much to the dismay of environmentalists. AB 1323 was introduced by Assemblymember Holly Mitchell, and would have imposed a statewide moratorium on fracking until an independent evaluation of the health and environmental impacts of the practice could be completed.

However, changes to the language of the proposed bill did away with the independent evaluation process and called for a moratorium only until the California Department of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources finished hammering out a set of regulations around the practice. A similar piece of legislation to impose a fracking moratorium, AB 1301, was kept on suspense file and won’t move forward this year.

“It renders the moratorium essentially meaningless,” Food and Water Watch political director Adam Scow told the Bay Guardian shortly after the changes were made. “We have a bill that is inadequate for protecting Californians from fracking.”

And that’s partly why Brown is the new target for anti-fracking activists. Elijah Zarlin, a campaign manager at Credo, jumped on the megaphone during the rally. “We’ve seen what fracking has done in Pennsylvania,” he said. “Governor Brown has the power to not let that happen in California.”

Alerts

Andrew Lam
-
0

WEDNESDAY 29

Protest: Call on Walmart and Gap to protect worker safety tinyurl.com/nfvnslj. Four Seasons, 757 Market, SF. Continue to Gap flagship store, 980 Market, SF. 5pm, free. Activists with Our Walmart and San Francisco Jobs With Justice recently discovered that Walmart made clothing at Rana Plaza, the Bangladesh factory building that collapsed recently, killing more than a 1,100 workers. Activists plan to rally outside the Four Seasons penthouse of Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer, who also sits on the board of Walmart. Activists will show up to ask Mayer, then Gap, to sign onto a building safety agreement that would prevent future tragedies of this scale. Actions followed by a 6pm gathering at Bayanihan Community Center, 1010 Mission, SF. Dialogue on LGBT-inclusive comprehensive immigration reform SF Public Library, 100 Larkin, SF. www.sf-hrc.org. 5:30-7:30pm, free. The SF Human Rights Commission will host this community conversation on LGBT-inclusive comprehensive Immigration Reform, cosponsored by the Human Rights Commission LGBT Advisory Committee, Our Family Coalition, and Out4Immigration.

THURSDAY 30

San Francisco Green Film Festival Various SF and East Bay locations, Thu/30 thru Wed/5. www.sfgreenfilmfest.org. General admission $12/$11; Festival passes $100–$200. View 50 new films from around the globe, with over 70 visiting filmmakers and guest speakers, on topics ranging from clean energy, to water, to trash, to art in the environment. Events take place at the New People Cinema in Japantown, the SF Public Library, SPUR Urban Center and the David Brower Center in Berkeley.

SATURDAY 1

Moana Nui 2013 two-day teach-in Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School Auditorium, 1781 Rose, Berk. tinyurl.com/nlw34wd. 10am on Sat/1 to 6pm on Sun/2, $10–$20. The International Forum on Globalization and Pua Mohala I Ka Po present this two-day, international gathering featuring 45 speakers from 20 nations. All will present on critical issues facing the Asia-Pacific region, ranging from environment, to militarism, to global trade and resource depletion. Participants include Jerry Mander (dubbed as the "Ralph Nader of the anti-globalization movement" by the New York Times); indigenous actress Q’orianka Kilcher; Anuradha Mittal of the Oakland Institute, and Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, one of the original drafters of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, among others.

SUNDAY 2


Conference on public banking Dominican University, San Rafael. www.publicbanking.org. 1pm on Sun/2 to 6:30pm on Tue/4, $35 to $295. Join the Public Banking Institute in conversation with pioneering policymakers, civic leaders, banking entrepreneurs, innovators and ordinary citizens interested in learning about one of the most critical undertakings of our time: creating a truly prosperous, democratic and sustainable new economy. Attend the conference or just catch the Sun/2, 7pm forum, titled Take Our Economy Back from Wall Street, with Rolling Stone staff writer Matt Taibbi, Web of Debt author Ellen Brown, and guests Birgitta Jonsdottir, a member of Icelandic Parliament, and Gar Alperovitz, author of What Then Must We Do?

Da Mayor, local hire advocate

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
20

Even as Sup. John Avalos continues to be raked over the coals by San Francisco Examiner columnist Melissa Griffin for his so-called “peacocking, disrespectful demeanor” and “flexible hate speech standards,” the progressive District 11 supervisor nevertheless earned something akin to praise May 22 from an unlikely figure: former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown.

The San Francisco Chronicle columnist, attorney (Brown mentioned in his speech that he paid $50 a semester for law school), sometimes PG&E consultant, self-proclaimed “buddy” of former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and all-around power broker delivered his Annual Lecture on Political Trends at the Commonwealth Club yesterday. He plugged his own column, saying, “On Sunday, you can read a column that can’t be disputed. Because it’s my version of the facts.”

Brown is known for his cozy relationship with Mayor Ed Lee and is politically at odds with Avalos, who ran against Lee in 2011. Emphasizing his support for Lee, Brown lauded him for clinching the city’s right to host Super Bowl 2016 events in San Francisco. He pointed out, “That Super Bowl is going to be exactly when he’s possibly seeking reelection.”

Brown also mentioned accompanying the mayor on a recent trip to China, where Lee was reportedly “treated as if he was the president of America instead of just the mayor of San Francisco.”

However, Da Mayor had a bone to pick. He launched into a tale of how he often wanders down to the city’s bustling construction sites, marked by “these 24 or 25 cranes that you see around town” (presumably he finds time for this aimless wandering this between international excursions, dining with the Gettys in North Beach, and palling around with his “buddy” Schwarzenegger?). “Invariably I take a look at the cars, the crews,” he said, and has concluded that “they’re not San Franciscans.” Not only are private development projects being built by out-of-towners, he said, no local hire requirement was imposed upon the city’s Central Subway contractors. 

Giving voice to a cause long championed by Avalos, a progressive who fought doggedly to enact a local hire ordinance, Brown expressed frustration that locals aren’t the ones scoring gigs in the city’s construction bonanza.  

Then he gave Avalos a sort of backhanded compliment, calling him “the strongest advocate for local hire,” but saying “he hasn’t followed up the way he should follow up, to ensure that people who live here get the jobs.”

It seems unfair to lay the blame for this at Avalos’ feet, but Da Mayor seems to be on the money as far as this point is concerned: As long as SF has embarked on a building frenzy, shouldn’t it be residents who reap the benefits of decent paying construction gigs?

Activists’ zine documents violent arrests at SF State

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
8

Emotions ran high at San Francisco State University on May 21, where a group of activists held a rally decrying police officers’ excessive use of force in an incident that occurred last Thursday, May 16. Five arrests were made that night outside a student dormitory. YouTube videos showing police officers tackling the arrestees to the ground, as onlookers cry out in dismay, have drawn thousands of hits.

The five young people were arraigned May 21 and face charges of misdemeanor trespassing, with some facing additional charges of resisting and obstructing an officer. Resham MacFarlane, a friend of the arrestees who accompanied them to the university, said they had all been on campus as guests of SF State students who reside in the dorm.

Officially, the arrests were made by San Francisco State University Police Department. However, individuals who were at the scene told the Bay Guardian that SFPD officers were responsible for injuring several arrestees to the point of requiring them to be transported off the scene by ambulance. According news reports, a campus police officer also sustained minor injuries. 

At the rally yesterday, supporters of the five arrestees distributed a zine they’d created to document the events, including detailed descriptions of the injuries sustained. Melissa Nahlen, 25, reportedly wound up with “cuts near her eyes, a bruised and swollen lip, a swollen left hand … and cannot bend her neck downward due to being stomped on by the police.” Since she cannot afford to hire an attorney, Nahlen is being represented by the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office.

Another arrestee, Carlos Cruz, was transported from the scene in an ambulance and brought to a hospital before being taken to jail at 850 Bryant. Cruz was reportedly released yesterday, May 21. During the arraignment hearing, the court appointed defense attorney Stuart Hanlon to represent him, since he was unable to afford an attorney, and the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office cannot legally represent multiple co-defendants. 

“Carlos almost immediately received a blow to the head after being told he was trespassing,” according to activists’ written account. He was “Hit on head multiple times … Large bruise on shoulder, swollen wrists, loss of feeling in his thumb and forefinger in his right hand, bruises all over shins and knees, laceration on ear.” MacFarlane, a friend of Cruz’s, said that when she visited him in jail “he had a bruise on his sternum.”

Reached by phone, SFPD spokesperson Albie Esparza said he could not offer detailed comment on the incident because it was under SF State’s jurisdiction. “It’s not our investigation,” Esparza said. “We made no arrests. It would be inappropriate to comment on someone else’s jurisdiction.” SFPD only responded at the behest of SF State, he said, and were called in because “it was a chaotic scene.” 

Nan Broadman, a spokesperson at SF State, said campus police initially reported to the dorm because “an unidentified caller said a drunk male was harassing passersby” outsidethe building. A friend of the arrestees noted that they had been drinking earlier on that night. Broadman said a police report for the incident was not publicly available, and did not know whether a formal investigation of officer misconduct was underway.

MacFarlane and another friend of the arrestees, who gave her name as Natasha Noel, both said the trouble started when Cruz and a friend went outside to smoke a cigarrette and encountered police, who immediately pursued them upstairs into the dormitory. The physical clash between officers and arrestees is reflected in the YouTube videos, which Natasha recorded with her cell phone. Someone pulled the fire alarm during the incident, and the building was evacuated. 

A day earlier, on May 15, SFPD’s tactical unit conducted an early morning raid at an abandoned building at 200 Broad Street, where some 30 people had been living for months. Esparza said the building’s owner initally contacted police for assistance with removing the squatters. Because the abandoned building had been occupied for so long, police sought guidance from the San Francisco City Attorney’s office as to whether they should proceed, since it was unclear whether the squatters’ presence constituted a civil, or criminal matter. The City Attorney ultimately determined that because it wasn’t a residential property, they could be removed on criminal trespassing charges rather than evicted in a civil proceeding.

A handful of those squatters, including Cruz, MacFarlane, Nahlen and some others, wound up making their way to friends’ dorm rooms at SF State. The arrests occurred just hours after their arrival on campus, according to MacFarlane.

A detailed narrative included as part of the zine notes that the squatted building was known as “the SF Commune, a community center and social space for organizers in the Ocean View district of the city.” According to this account, squatters took over the property, which had been abandoned for several years, in April of 2012. “The building was filled with needles, broken glass, and buckets of human feces. The group worked for weeks cleaning up the building, moving out all the hazardous materials and disposing of them properly, and turning the building into a livable home and organizing space.”

MacFarlane said she had been staying at the squat. “I had another place to stay, but I chose to stay at the commune,” she explained, adding that she found it to be a positive and constructive atmosphere. “There was lots of music and art every day.”

Alerts

Andrew Lam
-
0

WEDNESDAY 22

Harvey Milk Day The GLBT History Museum, 4127 18th St., SF. (415) 621-1107 . 11am-6pm, free. California marks Harvey Milk’s birthday, May 22, as an annual statewide day of significance. The GLBT History Museum will honor the occasion this year by offering free admission to all visitors. In addition, the museum is extending a special welcome to Bay Area schools.


Talking about ecology and science in public 518 Valencia, SF. 7:30-10:30pm, free. Join environmental scientist and climate change activist Azibuike Akaba, Brent Plater of the Wild Equity Institute and Rose Aguilar of KALW’s Your Call radio for a debate on the best way to communicate issues about climate change with the general public.

THURSDAY 23

Report-back from Cuba Modern Times Bookstore Collective, SF. (415) 282-9246. 7pm, Free. Tony Ryan, longtime bookseller and Cuba solidarity activist, will give a presentation on the Havana International Book Fair and discuss the work of Nancy Morejón, the best known and most widely translated woman poet of post-revolutionary Cuba.

FRIDAY 24

Outdoor Film screening: Who Bombed Judi Bari? Mythbusters, 1268 Missouri, SF. tinyurl.com/aoha47n. 8:30-11:30pm, free. On May 24, 1990, a bomb blew up in the car of two of the most prominent Earth First! redwood activists: Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney — while they were driving through Oakland, CA on an organizing tour for Redwood Summer. The FBI and Oakland Police immediately accused the pair of carrying their own bomb and of being environmental terrorists. Bari and Cherney launched a lawsuit against the FBI and Oakland Police for violations of the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, and when their case went to trial in 2002, they won. Watch this film on the anniversary of the explosion.

TUESDAY 28

The Future of Bicycle Parking: An International Exhibition SPUR, 654 Mission, SF. www.spur.org. 11am-8pm, free. Yerba Buena Community Benefit District presents an exhibit featuring designs from 100 international teams who entered a student competition to craft a portable bicycle corral for the Yerba Buena neighborhood. The exhibit goes till May 31, till 5pm most days.

UCSF medical centers prepare for strike

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
76

On Tuesday morning at 4 a.m., a 48-hour strike will begin at University of California medical centers across the state.

The strike was called by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 3299, a union representing more than 13,000 UC patient care technical workers.

AFSCME has been at an impasse on contract negotiations with UC for months. Administrators have pointed to proposed pension reform measures as the central issue, while the union has highlighted rising executive salaries and bonuses that they deem unfair at a time when frontline staff positions have been cut. AFSCME also recently called for new caps on UC executives’ pensions.

Speaking on a conference call earlier today, Jack Stobo, senior vice president for health sciences and services at the UC system, told reporters that the upcoming strike would affect patient care. He said 150 surgeries had to be rescheduled, and estimated that some 100 patient transfers would be delayed. “We have canceled a number of chemotherapy sessions and approximately half of radiation sessions with patients who are about to start radiation therapy,” he added. 

UC administrators pegged the total cost of the two-day strike at about $20 million for the entire system, mostly associated with hiring temporary staffers. They did not provide the number of temporary staffers that would be brought on. Stobo said the strike “will impact our ability to provide the quality services that we’re committed to provide to a large number of patients.”

AFSCME, on the other hand, says it has been working for months to craft a patient protection plan. “We have a patient protection task force in place in the event of a medical emergency,” such as an event that would cause a major influx of patients, AFSCME 3299 spokesperson Todd Stenhouse told the Bay Guardian. “Our workers are the ones … who understand the stakes. That’s why they’ve taken pains to make sure patients are protected.”

Union representatives say they are striking in part due to concern about the long-term erosion of patient care, stemming from cuts to frontline staff positions earlier this year.

“This strike is not just about the next two days – it’s about the fact that UC is endangering its patients every day with chronic understaffing and reckless cost cutting,” said AFSCME 3299 President Kathryn Lybarger. “If we don’t stand up to it now, we are inviting disaster when thousands of new patients begin flooding UC hospitals with the onset of the Affordable Care Act in the coming year.”

Earlier today, a California Superior Court decision enjoined certain respiratory therapists and other critical classifications from striking, but the ruling does not prevent the strike from going forward. The decision stemmed from an effort by UC to halt the strike by petitioning for injunctive relief with the Public Employees Relations Board (PERB). The labor board upheld the union’s right to strike and only sought a temporary injunction in court.

Meanwhile, AFSCME-represented UC service workers will also hold a “sympathy strike” in support of patient care employees, and the University Professional and Technical Employees (UPTE), a union which represents pharmacists, clinical lab scientists, social workers and other health care professionals, is also planning a daylong sympathy strike on May 21. 

Jelger Kalmijn, systemwide president of UPTE, told the Bay Guardian that his union membership had voted to strike because “we support our sisters and brothers who work at UCSF.” He added that UPTE is also in contract negotiations with UC, and noted that pension reform is a key issue. “People stay here because of the benefits and the pension,” Kalmijn said. “It’s a serious concern. When [UC] makes half a billion in profit, why should employees have to give up their right to retire with dignity?”

Small Business Awards 2013: R&G Lounge

Andrew Lam
-
1
Small Business Awards 2013: R&G Lounge

The R & G Lounge has been a fixture in San Francisco’s Chinatown for 28 years. Taking up three floors with a seating capacity of 225, it’s served as the backdrop for many a wedding rehearsal dinner, birthday celebration, and other special occasion bashes. But it isn’t just heartwarming memories of being surrounded by friends and family with a pleasant Tsingtao buzz that linger in diners’ minds. Just as often, it’s the taste of the establishment’s signature seafood plate: salt and pepper live Dungeness crab.

“It was love at first bite,” a 25-year-old Yelper gushes about the first time she tried the specialty, back when she was in the seventh grade. The dish is available year-round, sourced locally when in season.

The R & G Lounge is known for dishing up traditional Cantonese cuisine from the Guangdong province of southern China. Most of the workers are originally from mainland China, and live in the city.

“We have a low turnover,” manager Frank Wong says of his staff, which is 70 strong. Rather than puffing up any star chefs, Wong describes the working atmosphere as decidedly “team-oriented.” Conversations in Cantonese and Mandarin float through the air, mingling with the savory aromas of ox tail stew, chow mein, Peking duck, or steamed fish plucked straight from the tank. Chinatown activist groups laud the restaurant for its exemplary treatment of workers, and efforts to extend benefits to them rarely seen in the neighborhood.

The restaurant has deep roots in the Chinatown community, regularly donating to schools in the area. When hosting community-based functions, “we work a lot through the San Francisco Chinese Chamber of Commerce,” says Wong, adding that multiple family members and investors own the popular restaurant, including Kinson Wong.

This connection helps drive a steady stream of “locals, business people, and tourists” through R & G’s doors, and since its located along the route of the Chinese New Year Parade, the sound of drums and the sight of a dragon procession can make for delicious accompaniment for your meal. 

631 Kearny, SF. (415) 982-7877, www.rnglounge.com

Ultimate zero

Andrew Lam
-
3
Ultimate zero

rebecca@sfbg.com

In January, Mayor Ed Lee appeared on the PBS NewsHour to talk up the city’s Zero Waste program, an initiative to eliminate all landfilled garbage by 2020 by diverting 100 percent of the city’s municipal waste to recycling or compost. “We’re not going to be satisfied,” with the 80 percent waste diversion already achieved, Lee told program host Spencer Michels. “We want 100 percent zero waste. This is where we’re going.”

But somewhere in Te Anau, New Zealand, an environmental scholar tuning into an online broadcast of the program was having none of it. “I sat there thinking, no, you’re not. It would be great if you were, but you’re not — for obvious reasons,” said Robert Krausz, who’s working toward a PhD in environmental management, describing his reaction during a Skype call with the Bay Guardian.

Krausz, a Lincoln University scholar originally from Canada, spent three years studying municipal zero-waste initiatives internationally, and completed an in-depth, 40-page analysis of San Francisco’s Zero Waste program as part of his doctoral thesis.

He may as well have taken aim at a sacred cow. The city’s Zero Waste program has near-universal support among local elected officials, and has garnered no shortage of glowing media attention. San Francisco’s track record of diverting 80 percent of waste from the landfill is well ahead of the curve nationally, scoring 15 percent higher than Portland, Ore., a green hub of the Pacific Northwest, and 20 percentage points or higher above Seattle, according figures provided by Recology, San Francisco’s municipal waste hauler.

Despite the city’s well-earned green reputation, Krausz arrived at the pessimistic conclusion that “San Francisco’s zero waste to landfill by 2020 initiative is headed for failure.” In seven years’ time, he predicts, the program deadline will be marked with a day of reckoning rather than a celebratory gala. “I think the city is setting itself up,” Krausz told the Guardian. “Somebody’s going to be holding the bag in 2020.”

 

 

ANOTHER AFFLUENT CITY

Sporting a goatee and glasses, Krausz comes across as the type you might find locking up his bike outside a natural foods store with canvas bags at the ready. When he visited San Francisco, he said he was ready to be wowed by the example of an ecologically enlightened city, yet ultimately left in disappointment. “It was just another affluent American city, in terms of consumption.”

The problem, he argues, is that people are still buying way too much disposable stuff — and a significant amount can’t be recycled. Plastic bags, food wrapping, pantyhose, plastic film, pet waste, construction materials with resin in them (like the popular Trex decking), and particularly disposable diapers have nowhere to go but into the landfill.

San Francisco produces a total of about six kilograms of trash per person per day before diversion is factored in — three times the U.S. national average. That’s a sobering figure that puts a slight dent in the city’s eco-conscious image. It’s not really fair to denizens of the city by the Bay, because it counts trash generated by 20 million annual visitors, daytime employees, developers, and businesses as well as residents. Nevertheless, the trash output ranks well above the per capita average for the Eurozone, which clocks in at a minimalistic 0.5 kg per person per day.

The city has earned its bragging rights for making strides toward diverting waste from the landfill — yet truckloads of waste still leave the famously green city every day. Since 2003, Krausz notes, San Francisco’s overall waste generation has actually increased, from 1,900 to 2,200 kilograms per person per year. At the same time, the per capita amount of waste going into a landfill has dropped, from about 1,000 to 500 kilograms per year. That’s still a lot of garbage.

Krausz argues that San Francisco has no comprehensive plan for achieving Zero Waste, while at the same time having little control over “top of the pipe” consumption, which generates a glut of trash. “While the city has achieved success at managing waste at the end-of-pipe, it has thus far failed to address the fundamental problem of consumption, which is driving waste generation,” his study notes.

Guillermo Rodriguez and Jack Macy of San Francisco’s Department of the Environment counter that there is a strategy, involving a host of different measures ranging from education, to policy initiatives, to incentive programs aimed at reducing waste. They think zero waste is possible. “We’re probably at 99 percent diversion here in this office,” said Macy, who serves as the city’s Commercial Zero Waste Coordinator. “At least 90 percent of the discard stream is recyclable and compostable,” he added. And as for the last 10 percent, “that pie will be shrinking as we find more markets” for recyclables.

Krausz also raised skepticism about Recology’s bid for a landfill contract that would extend until 2025, five years beyond the deadline for all waste elimination. To that, Recology’s Eric Potashner responded that state law requires 15 years of disposal capacity to guarantee a safety net, regardless of municipal aspirations.

Krausz is critical of San Francisco officials for promising zero waste, but he acknowledges that manufacturers of disposable goods, not city officials, are to blame. Ambitious legislative measures such as San Francisco’s mandatory composting program and a ban on plastic bags have been enacted and achieved tangible results, but for items like ubiquitous thin-film plastics, dirty diapers, synthetic materials, and the like, good solutions have yet to be found.

Krausz’ study also determined that no city on the planet that’s set out to do so has ever actually succeeded at achieving zero waste. “If you are a city that is a member of Western civilization as we know it, you’re not going to be zero waste to landfill, because you participate in the global economy,” Krausz states plainly.

 

 

SF’S TRASH PIT

On a recent Friday morning, Recology’s Potashner and Paul Giusti led a tour of the city’s recycling and waste processing facilities. It featured a stop at the transfer station, housed in a large warehouse off of Tunnel Road where all the refuse from the black trash bins is deposited before being carted off to the Altamont Landfill. A sweet, pungent aroma hung in the air. “We call this the pit,” Giusti explained as we approached a sunken area that could have contained multiple Olympic-sized swimming pools, extending a story or two below us into the earth. “This is the last frontier,” Potashner added. “The last 20 percent.”

It was filled with an astonishing quantity of trash, making a tractor that ambled awkwardly over top the mound to compact it down appear toy-like in comparison. The sea of discarded material contained every hue, and floating around in the debris were orange juice containers, cardboard boxes, and thousands upon thousands of (banned) plastic bags. Between 200 and 300 garbage trucks eject their contents into the pit each day, and a single truck can hold up to four tons of trash.

Giusti started working for Recology, formerly NorCal Waste Systems, in 1978, following in the footsteps of his father. Back then, the pit was more like a mountain: “When I would dump my truck, I could walk up this pile,” he said, gesturing toward a set of sprinklers suspended from the ceiling to indicate how high it once extended. State data confirms the story: In 2011, according to CalReycle, San Francisco sent 446,685 tons of waste to the landfill. That number has steadily declined over time; in 2007, it stood at 628,914 tons.

Asked for his reaction to Krausz’s thesis that the Zero Waste program won’t ever actually get to zero, Guisti turned the question around by asking, what’s the harm in trying? “Let’s say you said, zero waste is unattainable,” he said. “Then what’s the number? I think zero waste is an ambitious goal — but if we get to 90 or 95 percent, what a tremendous achievement.” Setting the highest of bars is important, he said, because striving for it provides the motivation to keep diverting waste from the landfill.

In order to actually reduce the city’s garbage from 446,685 tons to zero in the next seven years, Zero Waste program partners Recology and San Francisco’s Department of the Environment face a twofold challenge. First, they must prevent compostable and recyclable material from getting into the landfill pile. Second, they must find solutions for diverting the waste that currently has nowhere else to go but the landfill. With a combination of seeking new markets for recyclables, using technology that can sort out the recyclable and compostable matter, and implementing incentives and educational outreach programs, they’re still focused on the goal. “It’s hard to tell how close we’ll get to zero in 2020,” Macy said. So even if zero waste does not actually mean zero waste in the end, that goal “sends a message that we want to move toward being as sustainable as we can.”

Alerts

Andrew Lam
-
0

WEDNESDAY 15

Bike ride for fallen cyclists Justin Herman Plaza, SF. ramona.wheelright@gmail.com. tinyurl.com/bq623vg. 6:30pm, free. On the third Wednesday of May each year, the Ride of Silence is held in cities throughout the world to honor cyclists injured or killed while riding. The ride is also intended to advocate for safe streets for all users. The San Francisco 2013 contingent will visit nine locations, where ten bicyclists have been killed since 2001, to honor their memories.

THURSDAY 16

Sportswriter Dave Zirin in conversation with KALW’s Rose Aguilar Mission Cultural Center for Latino Arts, 2868 Mission, SF. tinyurl.com/cyujal2. 7pm, $10. The Center for Political Education (CPE) and Solespace present Rose Aguilar, the host of KALW’s “Your Call,” for a special on-stage discussion with noted author Dave Zirin, an author who writes regularly for The Nation and whose commentaries decode the political messages and messaging embedded in sports. Aguilar has hosted Your Call, a daily public affairs radio show on KALW, since 2006. This the only chance to catch Zirin in SF; he’ll appear a second time on May 17 in Oakland (visit link for details).

SATURDAY 18

Yogathon to raise awareness of HIV Madison Square Park, 849 Madison, Oakl. asianhealthservices.org/0518/ 8:30am-1pm, $10. Join Asian Health Services’ HIV/AIDS program for its Fourth Annual Strike a Pose! Yogathon, held in observance of National Asian and Pacific Islander (API) HIV Awareness Day. The event was created to raise awareness and resources for HIV/AIDS prevention within the Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) community in Alameda County.

Bay Area Debtors’ Assembly. Unite Here, Local 2, 209 Golden Gate, SF. strike-debt-bay-area.tumblr.com. (415) 568-6037. 2-5pm, free. Strike Debt Bay Area, a local chapter of an international movement formed to resist unjust debt, will host its second Debtors’ Assembly, with the goal of rethinking debt as a political platform for collective resistance and action. Come to the Assembly to learn about tools for escaping debt, sharing resources, skills and experiences, and brainstorming.

MONDAY 20

Eve Ensler reads from her memoir First Congregational Church, 2501 Harrison, Oakl. tinyurl.com/brcvovn. 7:30pm, $35 advance / $38 door. KPFA Radio, Code Pink and Pegasus Books present “Eve Ensler: In the Body of the World,” hosted by Erica Bridgeman. Internationally renowned playwright, activist and author Eve Ensler is the founder of V-Day, the global movement to end violence against women and girls. Ensler will discuss her memoir, In the Body of the World, taking readers through her personal history of sexual abuse, her travels to the Congo, her diagnosis with cervical cancer, and her reflections on the resilience of humanity.

TUESDAY 21

An Evening with Eduardo Galeano First Congregational Church of Oakland, 2501 Harrison, Oakl. tinyurl.com/bl8mb4z. 7:30-9:30pm, $15 advance. One of Latin America’s most distinguished writers, journalists and historians, Eduardo Galeano is the author of the Memory of Fire Trilogy, Open Veins of Latin America, Days and Nights of Love and War, and many other works. Born in Montevideo in 1940, Galeano lived in exile in Argentina and Spain for many years before returning to Uruguay. In his latest work, Children of the Days: A Calendar of Human History, each page has an illuminating story that takes inspiration from that day of the calendar year. Hosted by KPFA Radio.

DPH: Unaffordable housing is bad for your health

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
13

To cover rent on a two-bedroom apartment at “fair market value” in SoMa, a San Francisco minimum-wage earner would have to work 7.4 full-time jobs.

That jaw-dropper of a statistic is just one tidbit in a fascinating dataset featured in a recently published interactive map plotting housing affordability in San Francisco neighborhoods. Combining data from Craigslist and PadMapper, the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, and the local minimum wage ($10.24 per hour, widely regarded as generous), the map isn’t the handiwork of affordable housing activists. [Note: this reflects the 2012 minimum wage, the rate now stands at $10.55.]

Instead, it was created by the San Francisco Department of Public Health’s Program on Health, Equity and Sustainability. To view the full map and dig around for data on your neighborhood of interest, go here.

The embedded dataset reveals that the median income in SoMa is $91,000 lower than the $158,000 one would need to afford renting a market-rate two-bedroom. This figure, expressed as $-91,000, is known as the “affordability gap,” and the map plots these gaps neighborhood by neighborhood.

It was rolled out as part of a weeklong effort to raise public awareness about the link between affordable housing and public health, explains Cyndy Comerford, manager of planning and fiscal policy at the Environmental Health division of DPH. The reason? “Unmet housing needs in San Francisco can result in significant public health concerns,” Comerford says.

A lack of affordable rental housing can push more tenants into substandard or overcrowded living situations, she adds. Housing units within reach for lower income residents might be squeezed up against a highway, for instance, putting tenants in close proximity to noise, traffic, or air pollution, thus increasing their risks for experiencing heart or respiratory problems. Substandard housing also makes lead or mold exposure more likely, possibly triggering serious health issues over time.

For residents who fork over a significant percentage of their income for rent, other problems can arise. “It leaves little money for other provisions,” such as healthy food or preventative health care, Comerford adds, so low-income tenants have a higher likelihood of malnourishment or preventable disease related to nutrition.

The map is part of a broader DPH initiative known as the Sustainable Communities Index, which provides datasets for more than 100 health indicators. There’s a whole section on housing, which even covers the negative health effects of eviction: “Involuntary displacement contributes to stress, loss of supportive social networks and increased risk for substandard housing conditions and overcrowding,” DPH points out.

More information is yet to come: “Every day this week, we’ll put out a new bit of information around health and housing,” Comerford says.

Taking a broader view, it appears that sweeping cuts to public programs will present a whole new set of challenges for lower-income populations who have a higher risk of housing-related health problems. As a New York Times opinion piece highlighting the public health ramifications of austerity measures notes, “there are warning signs … that health trends are worsening. Prescriptions for antidepressants have soared. Three-quarters of a million people (particularly out-of-work young men) have turned to binge drinking. Over five million Americans lost access to health care in the recession because they lost their jobs.”

Amid all this, as a consequence of the $85 billion “sequester” that began on March 1, “Public housing budgets will be cut by nearly $2 billion this year,” the New York Times piece continues, “even while 1.4 million homes are in foreclosure.”

Aiming for the top of the food chain

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
6

The issue of labeling for genetically engineered foods gained fresh momentum last week, when Sen. Barbara Boxer announced she’d be pushing for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to require this consumer notification on a national level.

It’s sure to be an uphill battle for the organic food movement, which suffered a loss on this issue at the California ballot last year, but a new book calling for a mass restructuring of the nation’s food system might help provide ammunition for proponents of GE food labeling.

Wenonah Hauter’s Foodoply: The Battle over the Future of Food and Farming in America traces decades of little-known history documenting small farmers’ resistance to agricultural consolidation, followed by national and international policy agreements that gave rise to the commercialized agribusiness model that dominates America’s food system today. Hauter, executive director of Food and Water Watch, grew up on a farm.

“It gave me life experience about how difficult farm work is, and how hard farmers have to work, and how under-valued they are in our society,” the author said of that experience in a recent interview with the Bay Guardian. “One of the reasons I wrote Foodopoly was to get at this issue … It’s easy to demonize farmers rather than the systemic causes of the traditional food system.”

Her book is nothing short of a call to arms to take back corporate control of a food system that short-changes small farmers and leaves consumers with limited, unhealthy options.

“If we want to change our food system, we have to reclaim our democracy,” she says. “So many people just think we’re going to create an alternative system, without really doing the political work to address fundamental issues, like the consolidation that allows some companies to have so much power over our political system.” It won’t be achieved with certified sustainable agriculture programs or farmers markets alone, she says – but rather through confronting agribusiness’ influence in the halls of government.

Her meticulously researched work names names, providing detailed lists of the industry’s most influential processers, grocers, and junk-food manufacturers along with the ubiquitous brands they produce. It also sheds light on the ills of factory farming and genetically engineered foods.

“The top 20 processing companies and the grocery industry have benefited from figuring out that fat, sugar and salt actually addicts people to junk food, and is making people sick and overweight,” Hauter told us. “Children see just under 5,000 junk food ads a year. We know that children begin to identify with brands at about the age of two. Lots of junk food is placed at eye level for young children, because they pull on their parents’ shirttails, whining for the junk food.”

While organics may pose a healthier alternative, meanwhile, Hauter’s chapter on the “paradox” of attractively packaged, premium-priced organic food is rather disheartening. “Fourteen of the 20 largest food processing companies actually control many of the organic brands, and organics today are viewed as a rich market, where people can be charged,” Hauter notes, going straight to the heart of the matter. “It’s a lot different from the vision I think many people had in the early 1970s, when the organics movement began.”

Foodopoly also devotes considerable attention to the political influence of the biotech sector. “I think that the biotech industry has a lot of political power,” she told the Guardian, and then revealed that assertion to be a profound understatement: “Over a 10-year period, they spent $572 million on lobbying and campaign contributions, they hired 13 former members of Congress during this period, they hired 300 former staff from the White House … and they have about 100 lobby shops in Washington. … With Prop 37, [of the] the approximately $45 million put towards ads, about $8 million was Monsanto’s.”

This kind of influence doesn’t just carry troubling implications for the democratic process, but makes it less likely that looming questions around the long-term health effects of genetically engineered foods will ever be sufficiently answered.

“With all the new technology coming on – nanotechnology, cloning, genetic engineering – we really need to take a look again at our regulatory system,” Hauter insists. “There’s a lot of new evidence coming out on the problems with these new technologies. There was a review of hundreds of scientific studies around glyphosate, which is a major ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. It shows that there are cellular effects within the human body, and that these could very well be working together with other variables to trigger health problems. We’re talking about everything from gastrointestinal problems, to diabetes, autism, obesity, Alzheimer’s, and a number of different problems.”

Despite these disturbing findings, there’s been a distinct lack of long-term study or precautionary restraints imposed by lawmakers, Hauter says.

“There are a lot of other reasons that we should be concerned about genetic engineering, from the cost and control of foods, to the overuse of this dangerous herbicide, glyphosate, and the fact that it’s creating super weeds,” she says. Further complicating matters, “New pesticides are being developed to address the problems that these co-branded herbicides have caused. That’s the problem with our society,” Hauter adds. “We never look at the unintended consequences.”

1...111213...35Page 12 of 35

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