Rebecca Bowe

PG&E granted cash reward, green light on power plant

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
0

While news surrounding Pacific Gas & Electric Co. has been dominated by a faulty weld and early warnings on the the San Bruno gas pipeline, which ruptured in a fatal explosion Sept. 9, the giant utility company received some good news at the Dec. 16 California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) meeting.

Not only was PG&E awarded an additional $29 million cash reward for its performance in an energy efficiency program, bringing the total amount it’s received to $104 million, but it was granted commission approval to construct a new, $1.5 billion power plant in Oakley.

Ironically, the energy-efficiency program is designed to reduce the need to construct new power plants, which contribute to greenhouse gas emissions that are blamed for climate change.

The additional bonus was approved with a 3-2 vote on the “final true-up” of the energy-saving program. An independent CPUC evaluation of the utility’s performance in that program found that it fell short of the targets required to receive a cash bonus.

Commission President Michael Peevey justified the additional cash reward by saying utilities could not have known that the numbers they used to estimate energy savings were inflated, and that they would not have been able to adjust their energy-saving tactics in the middle of the program cycle to improve performance.

According to the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), a consumer-advocacy branch of the regulatory agency, “The CPUC today approved the additional $29.1 million award to PG&E in a 3-2 split vote, despite an Administrative Law Judge’s finding that no further bonuses should be awarded, nor penalties levied. Rather than receiving an additional $29 million bonus, PG&E should repay $74.9 million in bonuses already awarded for energy efficiency programs that failed to meet CPUC-established energy savings goals, and it should pay an additional $1.3 million in penalties, based on the original incentive mechanism.”

Barbara George, executive director of Women’s Energy Matters, blasted the decision. “In this shaky economy, it’s incredible that the Commission would force ratepayers to pay profits for utilities that missed their targets by a mile. This hurts everyone in California. Cities, businesses, and residential ratepayers will all have to pay twice for utilities’ failures — once for these undeserved ‘rewards,’ and again in high monthly utility bills that should have been reduced by these programs, but were not.”

The 4-1 vote to approve PG&E’s Oakley power plant was a reversal of an earlier commission decision rejecting the proposal. DRA weighed in on this item, too, saying data on PG&E power reserves suggests that the new facility is unnecessary.

“PG&E ratepayers are now on the hook for $1.5 billion in costs for energy they don’t need while being shut out of the decision-making process that will leave all PG&E customers with higher utility bills,” said DRA acting director Joe Como.

PG&E may receive millions for unverified energy savings

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
5

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. is poised to receive millions in shareholder bonuses for successfully administering a statewide energy-efficiency program designed to curb customers’ energy consumption. But consumer advocates have sounded the alarm that the utility doesn’t deserve it.
 Although PG&E claims it earned the cash because it achieved the targets of the energy-saving program, the utility’s findings are unverified. In fact, an independent California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) evaluation found that instead of the A+ grade PG&E claims it achieved by meeting the goals of the program, the utility’s performance actually amounts to a D.

The cycle for the incentive program spans 2006 to 2008, and PG&E was already awarded $76.2 million for savings the utility said it achieved, even though its progress had yet to be measured against the findings of the independent report. The matter will be revisited at a Dec. 16 CPUC meeting, when commissioners decide how to handle the “final true-up” of the program for all four investor-owned utilities. PG&E and the three other utilities could be awarded millions more in bonuses.

The program was crafted as a way to bring energy companies on board with a prospect that normally wouldn’t make sense for their bottom line – encouraging customers to use less of the electricity they sell. In exchange for participating in a program that attempted to slash energy use by getting energy-efficient appliances, light bulbs, and information into the hands of consumers, the CPUC offered utilities a carrot for stepping up to the plate.
 
If the companies managed to hit 85 percent of the energy-savings targets or better, the state’s investor-owned utilities could be awarded cash bonuses that would get progressively larger with their degree of success. If the companies reached just 65 to 85 percent of the goals, they wouldn’t realize any gains or suffer any losses. And, if they fell below the 65 percent threshold, they would have to pay a penalty.

Although PG&E found in its own results that it met the targets handily, the CPUC report offered a different picture. Released in April 2010, after the first incentive award had been granted, the report found that PG&E achieved 71 percent, 60 percent, and 63 percent of their targets in three energy-saving categories. Basically, it flunked two out of three.

Now that the CPUC faces a decision on whether to award an additional bonus, and how much should be granted, no one seems to agree on just how the energy savings ought to be calculated. Several proposed options are on the table, based on different sets of numbers and the correspoding calculations. The question of how much energy PG&E actually saved is extraordinarily complex, and there seem to be multiple answers. The reward money, by the way, comes from ratepayers.

Commission President Michael Peevey is proposing that PG&E and the three other utilities receive additional incentive rewards totaling $62 million, based on numbers that push the utilities into the higher-scoring categories. Meanwhile, a proposed decision by an Administrative Law Judge recommends that commissioners neither penalize the utilities nor grant them any extra money.

However, the Division of Ratepayer Advovcates (DRA), an consumer-protection arm of the state agency, noted in a recent press statement that PG&E should have to give back the $76.2 million it already received, and face penalties for not meeting its goals. “Why would you give them bonuses for unverified savings?” asks Cheryl Cox, policy advisor for the DRA.

According to a DRA statement, “A comprehensive CPUC staff report released in April 2010 found that from 2006 to 2008, PG&E and the state’s other three major utilities (Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company) did not make enough progress to trigger bonus payments; in fact, the report found that all four of the state’s largest investor owned utilities failed to meet the performance threshold set by the CPUC, and based on the CPUC’s bonus mechanism three utilities, including PG&E, should owe penalties.”

The whole debacle highlights a good question: Why are California energy companies in charge of running programs that encourage people to use less energy, anyhow? Cox noted that she sees an inherent conflict-of-interest in the mechanism, and believes that ratepayer dollars for energy-savings programs might be better spent in a state-administered program that could use market leverage to get manufacturers to offer more efficient products.

The whole point of the energy efficiency program is to reduce the need to build new power plants, she pointed out, but utilities’ performance so far calls into question whether it’s really been effectively reducing energy consumption. After all, PG&E is seeking to construct a new power plant in Oakley. As things stand, “We’re creating the illusion of getting energy efficiency savings,” Cox said.

Barbara George, director of Women’s Energy Matters, noted that PG&E had mis-used energy efficiency funds by directing some of the money into campaigns to thwart a fledgling Community Choice Aggregation program in Marin County.

“Each proposed decision jumbles the inputs differently, with mind-numbing complexity, but the purpose is the same — to avoid the penalties they owe for failing to meet their targets, and to justify the profits CPUC already gave them,” George said. “The proposed decisions can’t agree on exactly how to justify screwing the public, because the record supports none of them.”

Larry Ellison, “city family” therapist

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
0
Larry Ellison, “city family” therapist

If billionaire yachtsman and Oracle CEO Larry Ellison rejects San Francisco’s bid for the America’s Cup, the whole ordeal might conclude with the kind of sappy ending that used to punctuate every episode of the sitcom Full House. The moral of the story would go something like this: It was never about the $1.2 billion in economic activity generated by the Cup, San Francisco, but something far more precious — coming together as a “city family.”

I didn’t count how many times the phrase “city family” was uttered at yesterday’s Dec. 14 Board of Supervisors meeting, but it was repeated in so many glowing remarks that I half-expected all 11 supervisors to join hands and start swaying and singing Kumbaya. Board President David Chiu made an analogy of all the crew members having to work together to win a sailing race, and then he took that yachting reference one step further, saying, “I want to thank everyone on the starboard and port side of the Board of Supervisors.”

Even Sup. Chris Daly, who opposed the first plan, threw his support behind the new deal, making for a rare unanimous vote of the Board of Supervisors.

Shortly after, during a ceremony called by Mayor Gavin Newsom to sign the America’s Cup bid, the mayor — who’s often at odds with Board progressives — praised Sup. Ross Mirkarimi and Board President David Chiu, saying, “This process was made better because of their leadership and stewardship.” Newsom also remarked on the unusual spirit of collaboration, saying, “I have rarely been part of something that brought more people of diverse backgrounds together.”

Even Chronicle columnist C.W. Nevius jumped on the big-happy-family bandwagon with a nod to Daly, who’s typically on the receiving end of his rants. In a column published Dec. 14, advising the city to stick to its guns and approve the better deal, Nevius included this astounding assertion: “I will have to say (gulp) I agree with Supervisor Chris Daly.”
 
Although Ellison hasn’t yet selected San Francisco for the Cup, he’s already accomplished a feat that probably no one else — neither shaman nor top-dollar family therapist — could manage. He infused San Francisco City Hall with a sense of harmony. He put forward a deal that was so outrageous, yet with an economic benefit so immense, that the supervisors, the port, the mayor, and the economic advisors were forced to put their differences aside, rise to the challenge, and craft a compromise that everyone (except maybe Ellison) could live with.
 
We knew he was good at winning boat races and lawsuits, but who ever imagined that Ellison’s hidden talent could ever bring such warm holiday cheer to City Hall?

Steven T. Jones contributed to reporting for this piece.

Potrero power plant could be shut down in February

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
0

The Potrero power plant could be shut down entirely by the end of February, the Guardian has learned. According to a report prepared for the Dec. 15 meeting of the California Independent System Operator (Cal-ISO) Board of Governors, an energy regulatory body, the aging power plant will soon be released from a Reliability Must-Run (RMR) contract requiring its continued operation for grid-reliability purposes.

“The ISO will provide an RMR termination notice to Mirant at the end of this month or in early January,” the report states, “which would terminate the RMR agreement by February 28, 2011.”

In August of 2009, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera reached an accord with Mirant Potrero LLC, the company that owns and operates the Potrero Power Plant, to shut down the plant by Dec. 31, 2010. Although the company agreed to the terms of shuttering the plant by the end of this year, there was a catch — the Cal-ISO would first have to terminate Mirant Potrero’s RMR contract. Apparently, that won’t happen till early next year, but this latest Cal-ISO report marks the first time the agency has committed to a specific date.

The Potrero power plant won’t be a necessary power source for San Francisco now that a new energy transmission line has been installed. The Trans Bay Cable, a 53-mile submarine power line that can transmit 400 megawatts of electricity from a Pittsburg substation to San Francisco, became fully operational on Nov. 23.

“The Trans Bay Cable finished its testing successfully and was put into successful service,” spokesperson P.J. Johnston told the Guardian. Meanwhile, a PG&E re-cabling project deemed important to San Francisco’s electricity reliability was completed Dec. 5.

“Having both of these projects completed and proven operationally reliable were the two key conditions for enabling the ISO to release the entire Potrero power plant from its reliability must-run contract obligation,” the Cal-ISO report notes.

Removing the Potero power plant from service will benefit San Francisco’s air quality, particularly in the city’s southeastern neighborhoods.

Race against the clock

Jesse Hawthorne Ficks
-
1
Race against the clock

rebeccab@sfbg.com

City officials were poised to finalize an offer to host the 34th America’s Cup after amending a sweetheart deal that had city taxpayers heavily subsidizing Oracle billionaire Larry Ellison’s yacht race. But the question now is whether Ellison will accept the new proposal.

The original deal negotiated between representatives for Ellison and Mayor Gavin Newsom called for ceding 35 acres of city-owned waterfront property to Ellison’s America’s Cup Event Authority (ACEA) rent-free, but it was criticized as too expensive for a city facing massive budget deficits (see "The biggest fish," Nov. 30).

So at the Dec. 8 meeting of the Board of Supervisors’ Budget & Finance Committee, that deal was jettisoned in favor of a cheaper alternative that shifted the race venue to the city’s Northern Waterfront and promised long-term leases on commercially reasonable terms. The new agreement appeared on track for approval at the Dec. 14 Board of Supervisors meeting, after Guardian press time.

At the same time, new doubts arose at the last minute when race organizers stated publicly that they were more likely to reject the new option than the original plan because the financial terms were not as attractive. Although expectations have been high all along that San Francisco would be selected to host the next Cup, the team cast doubt on the outcome by publicly criticizing the new plan. According to a source familiar with negotiations, that move came as a jarring surprise to city officials. Nonetheless, supervisors approved the proposal at a Dec. 13 special meeting and sent it on to the full board.

Newsom’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD) spent about four months in negotiations with Ellison’s BMW Oracle Racing Team and the ACEA to hash out a host city agreement. The Northern Waterfront scenario emerged in late November after Budget & Legislative Analyst Harvey Rose cautioned in a fiscal impact assessment that the original deal would have cost the city an estimated $128 million, including impacts to the general fund and losses from entering into rent-free leases.

The fundamental shift in the plan at this late stage, less than three weeks before the deadline for a final decision, reflected some deft maneuvering on the part of the board even in the face of intense pressure to approve a binding long-term agreement on an unusually short timeline. Sup. Ross Mirkarimi and Board President David Chiu, who expressed reservations about the original proposal but strongly favored the idea of bringing the race to San Francisco, were able to deflect a deal that would have harmed the city in favor of a wiser alternative by reshaping the proposal at the 11th hour.

"I was a little bit surprised by some of the recent press," Mirkarimi noted at the Dec. 13 meeting, referencing reports that the team was considering rejecting the bid. He asked everyone to keep in mind that "we’re working with public dollars and purse strings."

But the Mayor’s Office supported the modified deal. Press Secretary Tony Winnicker told the Guardian: "The Northern Waterfront bid is good for the city, great for the port, and will provide a spectacular experience for the America’s Cup. Hosting the America’s Cup will bring more than $1 billion in economic activity and thousands of jobs to San Francisco and showcase the city unlike almost any other event."

Speaking at the Dec. 8 committee meeting, Chiu also voiced his support for hosting the Cup. "Obviously this will have enormous benefits," Chiu said. "If this were to come to San Francisco, this will mean $1 billion and likely $1.2 billion in economic activity during the greatest recession since the Great Depression. We cannot ignore this opportunity."

The difference in the two scenarios amounts to tens of millions of dollars in savings. According to a fiscal feasibility analysis released Dec. 13 by the Budget Analyst, the net loss to the city under the Northern Waterfront alternative would be $11.9 million, compared to $57.8 million under the prior agreement (not including costs relating to the rent-free leases proposed earlier). However, that impact doesn’t account for a $32 million contribution that the America’s Cup Organizing Committee is expected to provide to the city to defray municipal costs.

Under the Northern Waterfront plan, Piers 30-32 and Seawall Lot 330 would be leased to race organizers for 66 and 75 years, respectively, on "commercially reasonable terms" with development rights included. The race organizers would receive a rent credit in exchange for investing an estimated $55 million for infrastructure improvements.

Rose’s office also found that the city would realize a net gain by transferring development rights for Piers 30-32 and Seawall Lot 330 with commercially reasonable rents, generating a net $12.3 million in new tax and lease revenues.

"This deal has significantly improved from the prior deal that went before you," Rose noted at the Dec. 13 Budget & Finance Committee meeting. The main reason for the reduction in costs was that under the original plan, ACEA would have been granted rent-free development rights to Pier 50, a 20-acre waterfront parcel needing costly renovations, for 66 years. Removing that costly improvement and shifting dredging costs from the city to race organizers made the prospect more feasible for San Francisco.

Piers 26 and 28 were added to the equation late in the game, too. Under the new plan, ACEA has the option to spend an additional $25 million renovating those piers in exchange for leasing them for 66 years with rent credits. Ted Egan, an economic analyst with the City Controller’s office, noted that the piers were expected to last for only 15 years if they weren’t renovated.

"Without the America’s Cup stepping forward, we lose them, and we lose any potential development that could take place at those piers," he noted. Port Director Monique Moyer also praised the plan at the Dec. 8 meeting, saying piers that would have continued to deteriorate could now be revitalized.

Chiu amended the agreement to secure greater assurance that the city would receive a $32 million contribution from the America’s Cup Organizing Committee (ACOC), the fund-raising arm of the race organizing team, to defray municipal costs. Prior to Chiu’s amendment, there was no guarantee that the city and county would receive that money, Rose pointed out.

Jennifer Matz, director of OEWD, noted that ACOC was "committed to using best efforts" to raise $32 million over the course of three years. Under the agreement, if the committee hasn’t successfully raised $12 million by one week after the environmental review has been completed, the city reserves the right to call off the deal.

The new plan seemed likely to pass muster even with Sup. Chris Daly, the most vocal opponent of the original plan. "One thing that’s clear is that it’s a whole lot better than the previous proposal," Daly said.

Ellison, who captured the 33rd America’s Cup off the coast of Spain and holds exclusive power to choose which city will host the next sailing match, has set Dec. 31 as the deadline for his final decision. But a source familiar with the negotiations told the Guardian an announcement was expected even sooner.

Ironically, there was little doubt that Ellison would select San Francisco until the very end of the process, when the city finally reached an agreement that seemed to satisfy the Mayor’s Office, the Board of Supervisors, and the economic analysts. At press time, it was still an open question whether Ellison will go for it.

"With this latest bit of vetting by us, I think the city has done the utmost it possibly could do in putting forth the best plan it possibly could craft in such a short period of time," Mirkarimi said at the close of the Dec. 13 meeting. "I think that San Francisco stands to be the best contender for hosting America’s Cup, and let that message ring well toward Mr. Ellison, and around the country, and abroad."

Supes OK America’s Cup deal

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
1
Supes OK America’s Cup deal

At its meeting today, Dec. 14, the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a host city agreement for bringing the 34th America’s Cup to San Francisco. However, it’s still unclear whether billionaire yachtsman Larry Ellison and the BMW Oracle Racing Team will select San Francisco as the host city for the next world-famous sailing match.

The agreement solidified a less costly plan and a dramatic improvement over a prior proposal, which the Guardian covered in-depth in a recent cover story. Under the new terms, the America’s Cup Event Authority (ACEA) would be granted long-term leases on commercially reasonable terms for Piers 30-32, Seawall Lot 330, and possibly Piers 26 and 28.

The ACEA would receive rent credits in exchange for investing $55 to $80 million in infrastructure improvements for San Francisco port properties, and San Francisco would benefit from an estimated $20 million boost in revenues from the event. The America’s Cup Organizing Committee would also raise $32 million to help defray municipal costs. The major difference from the prior plan is that Pier 50, a 20-acre waterfront parcel requiring costly renovations that would have been ceded rent-free to the ACEA with development rights for 66 years, was removed from the equation. The America’s Cup is expected to generate more than $1 billion in economic activity, plus create the equivalent of more than 8,000 jobs.

Board president David Chiu called the new plan, which shifts the race venue to the Northern Waterfront instead of the Central Waterfront, “much better, from a business perspective, for the city.”

Sup. Ross Mirkarimi, who supported early efforts to bring the Cup to San Francisco but expressed reservations about the original plan, commended city officials for working around the clock to hammer out a deal on an unusually short timeline.

While doubts arose over the weekend concerning whether or not the BMW Oracle Racing Team and billionaire yachtsman Larry Ellison would accept the latest plan, Port staff member Brad Benson told the Board that he’d met with Stephen Barclay, a representative of the race organizing team, for hours following a Dec. 13 special meeting of the Budget & Finance Committee held to consider the financial impacts of the latest draft.  “They would like to enter into an agreement by the end of this week,” Benson reported.

Sup. Chris Daly, who emerged as the most vocal opponent of the Cup in the early stages of the process, acknowledged that he had used “exciting language” to criticize the initial scheme. “The reason why I amplified the language is because I knew the city just could not afford that kind of financial outlay and cost,” he explained. Daly voted in favor of the revised deal because he said it would grant a “fair return for this city.”

Just before the vote, Daly likely caused representatives from the mayor’s office to groan when he announced that he wanted to propose one last amendment. “I need to borrow the Cup on Jan. 5,” he said. “I need a cup. To drink out of.” His joke elicited laughter. Daly will be the star of a roast scheduled for that date.

For more details on the improved America’s Cup agreement, see tomorrow’s issue of the Guardian.

Class of 2010: Scott Wiener

Jesse Hawthorne Ficks
-
3
Class of 2010: Scott Wiener

rebeccab@sfbg.com

Scott Wiener, who is 40, gay, soft-spoken, and remarkably tall, seems to have made an impression on voters with his successful campaign for District 8 (the Castro, Noe Valley) supervisor. On a recent Wednesday afternoon, several patrons of a Market Street café stopped to say hello and congratulate him. “I saw millions of signs about you!” one exclaimed.

A deputy city attorney, Wiener claimed one of the most decisive victories among contenders vying for seats on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. He’s more fiscally conservative than Rafael Mandelman, who was his progressive opponent in the race, and is more in step politically with Mayor Gavin Newsom than San Francisco progressives. Yet Wiener stressed to the Guardian that he should ultimately be viewed as an independent thinker. “For me, it’s about having mutual respect for everyone,” he said. “Even if you disagree on some issues, and even if you disagree on a lot of issues, you can always find areas of agreement.”

Asked about his priorities in office, Wiener put public transit at the top of the list. Over the next few decades, the population of San Francisco and the Bay Area will dramatically increase, he said. “And at the same time, we’ve been underfunding public transportation, and particularly our roads. It could potentially be a catastrophe if we’re not able to not just keep the system as it is, but actually expand it. That is a really big priority.” To raise money for Muni, he doesn’t support extending parking meter hours, but does support a local vehicle license fee. There’s some question surrounding that prospect since California voters approved Proposition 26, which requires a two-thirds majority vote for fees. But Wiener said he wanted to be involved in efforts to implement a VLF in San Francisco.

Another priority is finding ways to stimulate job growth. He approves of the city’s move to use a tax credit for biotech industry businesses as a means of encouraging job creation, but said that mechanism should be used sparingly since it creates a revenue hole. Instead, Wiener said he was more in favor of looking at payroll-tax reform — but only if it doesn’t result in a tax increase.

Wiener also places importance on supporting the city’s Entertainment Commission and preserving San Francisco’s vibrant nightlife. “That’s an issue that I’ve always worked on and I’ll be speaking at [the California Music and Culture Association] next Friday, which I’m hoping will become a really effective voice for that community,” Wiener noted. “It needs a really unified and strong voice. and I want to make sure that we are really prioritizing having a vibrant nightlife and outdoor festival scene, and that we’re not blaming the entertainment community for societal ills like gun violence.” He also mentioned bolstering the Entertainment Commission’s budget.

But might that pro nightlife stance place him at odds with the San Francisco Police Department? “In some ways, I’m from a public-safety background,” he said in response. “I’ve been involved in a lot of safety issues on a neighborhood level. I’ve worked closely with SFPD and I am supportive of Chief [George] Gascon. In a way, I think that gives me some credibility.”

Speaking of working closely with people, whom does Wiener see himself forming alliances with on the new board? “I definitely have a great relationship with Sean Elsbernd and Carmen Chu, and I will be working closely with them. But I don’t agree with them on everything,” he said. Board President David Chiu and Sup. David Campos were both his classmates at Harvard, he noted, so he feels confident in his ability to work with them even if they don’t always see eye to eye. “One thing I see about this board that I’m optimistic about is that I think it’s going to be a more collegial board,” he added.

On the question on everyone’s mind — who will succeed Mayor Gavin Newsom to serve as the interim mayor? — Wiener said he thinks the best idea is to appoint a caretaker mayor. “Next year’s going to be really hard year,” he said and a caretaker mayor could “help make some really hard choices that need to be made. I may not like all of those choices, but they can do something that someone who’s a brand new mayor seeking reelection may be timid about doing.”

Who might he support if the new board selects the successor mayor? “There are some really solid names that have been bandied about, like [San Francisco Public Utilities Director] Ed Harrington or [Sherriff] Mike Hennessey,” he replied.

Wiener’s going to be mostly a fiscal conservative when it comes to the budget. Any new revenue, he said, “should be very policy-based,” for example transit-oriented instead of raising business taxes.

And he has plenty of cuts in mind, including “the way we contract for nonprofits,” looking at shared overhead, and consolidation. He also said that “we need to continue moving forward with pension and benefit reform [and] aggressively address overtime in all departments.” And what can voters expect from Sup. Scott Wiener that’s different from Sup. Bevan Dufty, a mayoral hopeful who currently represents D8? Wiener didn’t go too far out on a limb on that one. “There have been some tenant issues that Bevan voted against and I supported,” he said. “We’ve had times where he’s been to my left, or I’ve been to his left, but I can’t speculate as to the future. It’s going to be case by case.” *

Legal fight brewing over HANC Recycling Center eviction

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
4

The Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council (HANC) Recycling Center, located at the Kezar Triangle in Golden Gate Park, received a 90-day eviction notice following a Dec. 2 Recreation and Park Commission meeting approving plans for a community garden in its current location. However, tenant lawyer Robert De Vries, who is representing HANC, submitted in a Dec. 2 letter to Rec & Park Commissioners that HANC could not legally be made to vacate until the end of June.

The eviction has prompted an outcry from progressive groups, environmental organizations, and other HANC supporters, who turned out en masse at the Dec. 2 meeting and voiced strong disapproval over the proposal. It now appears that the issue may wind up in court.

“HANC has no intention of vacating the premises any earlier than legally required,” De Vries wrote to Rec & Park Commissioners. “HANC is also not willing to allow disruptive construction work or other activities to go forward on the leased property while it is in possession.”

In an earlier memo to Rec & Park Commissioners, city staff proposed issuing HANC a 30-day eviction notice, which would have ousted the recycling center by the end of December. That timing was significant, because it would have occurred under the administration of Mayor Gavin Newsom, a proponent of the eviction, who will vacate office Jan. 8 to be sworn in as Lieutenant Governor. Citing advice from the San Francisco City Attorney, the memo noted that Rec & Park could proceed with a 30-day eviction without commission approval.

But that initial advice was erroneous, City Attorney spokesperson Matt Dorsey told the Guardian, because it did not take into account HANC’s quarterly rental payments. Since the organization pays rent once every 90 days, instead of once a month, it cannot be evicted with just 30 days notice, according to state law. Once it was informed of HANC’s quarterly payments (by city staff, not De Vries’ letter, Dorsey said), the City Attorney advised Rec & Park that it should extend the eviction notice to 90 days.

The extra 60 days doesn’t just buy HANC time, it gives them hope. Newsom will be in Sacramento by then, and it’s possible that he could be replaced with an interim mayor who’s sympathetic to their cause.

De Vries, however, contends that 90 days is still too soon, and that HANC can’t legally be evicted until June 30, 2011. HANC’s original five-year, fixed-term lease ended on June 30, 2001. Since then, it’s been paying rent to the city every 90 days. De Vries wrote that under state law, this arrangement means that “the lease is automatically renewed” for one year, and that it’s renewed annually since 2001. California courts have found that “a tenancy from year to year is created where a tenant holds over after the expiration of a former lease for one or more years and pays rent,” De Vries wrote in his letter. His analysis is based on his reading of California Civil Code Section 1945.

“I don’t really see any other interpretation, frankly,” De Vries told the Guardian. In his view, by issuing a 90-day notice, “they’re putting something into the statute that isn’t there.”

The City Attorney’s office rejects De Vries’ analysis, and insists that the eviction notice is legal. “The lease does not expire on June 30,” Dorsey said, “and Rec & Park delivered a proper notice of termination.”

If this dispute winds up in court, it’s possible that the question won’t be settled until June of 2011 anyhow.

Rec & Park trashes HANC Recycling Center

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
12
Rec & Park trashes HANC Recycling Center

At yesterday’s Recreation & Park Commission meeting on Dec. 2, hundreds of San Francisco residents turned out to urge commissioners not to replace the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council (HANC) Recycling Center with a community garden. Their pleas fell on deaf ears.

It didn’t matter that a sunnier spot for a community garden had already been identified in the same area, with funding approved by the commission more than a year ago. It didn’t matter that thousands of people use the recycling center every month, and that the nonprofit bolsters community gardens throughout the city with donations and funding. It didn’t matter that we’re in a recession and there were jobs on the line. It didn’t matter that HANC pays rent to a city department facing a $12.5 million deficit, but the community garden would cost $250,000.

All that mattered in the end was that Rec & Park, and Mayor Gavin Newsom, wanted the HANC recycling center out. They thought removing it might discourage homeless people from sleeping in the park and hanging around the neighborhood. After nearly four hours of listening to residents urge them not to do it, the commissioners yawned and pushed the eject button. They unanimously voted in favor of the community garden. A 90-day eviction notice is expected to go out to HANC today.

The fight over HANC’s eviction has been described as a political battle between progressives and moderates, a showdown between heroes who stand up for public safety versus intimidating thugs and the lefties who enable them, and even a sequel to the sit /lie controversy. I think there’s an 800-pound gorilla sitting in the middle of this fight that no one wants to talk about: Class.

Community gardens are wonderfully empowering. I used to volunteer at one at a public housing complex in North Carolina. It was especially important for people who lived in that low-income community, since they benefited from nutritious produce that also lowered their grocery bills. Under the city’s plan for this new, gated community garden, 30 of the 40 garden plots will go to area residents. Given the affluence of that neighborhood, the garden beds will likely go to people who can afford organic groceries at Whole Foods without breaking into a sweat. For well-to-do San Franciscans, growing produce is not a means of survival — it’s about feeling good, and being green. By itself, there’s nothing wrong with that.

The problem is that it will be installed at the expense of a long-standing community resource that employs 10 people and lightens the load for hundreds of others during a recession, when people are truly struggling to get by. The Rec & Park Commission has essentially decided that this parcel of public space should be taken from a nonprofit that benefits people of all classes, and given to a small number of residents who’ve voiced complaints about “quality-of-life issues.”

In its current function, the HANC Recycling Center is empowering to many different kinds of people. Most aren’t homeless. Tough-as-nails Asian grandmas show up with bags full of cans that they can exchange for some extra spending money. Urban gardeners purchase native plants in hopes of pleasing native insects and birds. People on fixed incomes get a small financial boost by turning in recyclables.

A small number of the HANC Recycling Center patrons do sleep outside. In order to earn small amounts of cash for things like food, many of them have to go digging around in garbage cans, which is gross and humiliating. Why would someone paw through the garbage for hours, battling bees and germs, and then haul smelly bottles uphill in a shopping cart just to make a few bucks? My guess is that it’s to ward off desperation. They make their own work, and they get to eat.

“Some of them may use drugs,” one of the speakers acknowledged last night. “But,” he paused for dramatic effect. “Some of us use drugs, too.”

When sit / lie was under debate, critics wondered where the homeless were supposed to go, if they couldn’t sit on the sidewalks. Often, the reply was that they could go to the parks. But this latest attack on the homeless shows that they aren’t welcome there, either.

This is an opinion piece.

The biggest fish

Andrew Lam
-
6
The biggest fish

rebeccab@sfbg.com

Shortly after Larry Ellison, the billionaire CEO of Oracle Corp. and owner of the BMW Oracle Racing Team, won the 33rd America’s Cup off the coast of Valencia, Spain, in February 2010, a reception was held in his honor in the rotunda at San Francisco City Hall.

The event drew members of Ellison’s sailing crew, business and political heavyweights such as former Secretary of State George Schultz, and other VIPs. Attendees posed for photographs with the tall, glittering silver trophy at the base of the grand staircase.

As part of the celebration, Ellison helped Mayor Gavin Newsom into an official BMW Oracle Racing Team jacket, and Newsom granted Ellison a key to the city, a symbolic honor usually reserved for heads of state and the San Francisco Giants after they won the World Series. Shortly after, the mayor and the guest of honor, whom Forbes magazine ranked as the sixth-richest person in the world, sat down for a face-to-face.

That meeting marked the beginning of the city’s bid to host the 34th America’s Cup in San Francisco in 2013. Since securing the Cup, Ellison has made no secret of his desire to stage the 159-year-old sailing match against the iconic backdrop of the San Francisco Bay, a natural amphitheater that could be ringed with spectators gathered ashore while media images of the stunningly expensive yachts are broadcast internationally.

Newsom and other elected officials have feverishly championed the idea, touting it as an opportunity for a boost to the region’s anemic economy. The city’s Budget & Legislative Analyst projects roughly $1.2 billion in economic activity associated with the event — the real prize, as far as business interests are concerned. It would also create the equivalent of 8,840 jobs, mostly in the form of overtime for city workers and short-term gigs for the private sector.

While the idea has won preliminary support from most members of the Board of Supervisors, serious questions are beginning to arise as the finer details of the agreement emerge and the date for a final decision draws near.

Ellison and the race organizers would be granted control of 35 acres of prime waterfront property in exchange for selecting San Francisco as the venue for the Cup and investing $150 million into Port of San Francisco infrastructure. But the event would result in a negative net impact to city coffers.

Hosting the event and meeting Ellison’s demands for property would cost the city about $128 million, according the Budget & Legislative Analyst, just as city leaders grapple with closing a projected $712 million deficit in the budget cycle spanning 2011 and 2012.

Part of the impact is an estimated $86 million in lost revenue associated with rent-free leases the city would enter into with Ellison’s LLC, the America’s Cup Event Authority (ACEA). In exchange for selecting San Francisco as a venue and investing in port infrastructure, ACEA would win long-term control of Piers 30-32, Pier 50, and Seawall Lot 330 — waterfront real estate owned by the Port of San Francisco, with development rights included. Seawall Lot 330, a 2.5-acre triangular parcel bordered by the Embarcadero at the base of Bryant Street, would either be leased long-term or transferred outright to ACEA.

The most vociferous opponent of the America’s Cup plan is Sup. Chris Daly, who has voiced scathing criticism of the notion that the city would subsidize a billionaire’s yacht race at a time of fiscal instability. “The question is whether or not the package that San Francisco’s putting together is good or bad for the city,” Daly told the Guardian, “and whether or not it’s the best deal the city can get.”

 

THE CREW

According to a Forbes calculation from September 2010, Ellison’s net worth is $27 billion, making him several times wealthier than the City and County of San Francisco, which has a total annual budget of about $6 billion. Ellison reportedly spent $100 million and a decade pursuing the Cup.

As soon as Ellison expressed interest in bringing the Cup to San Francisco, Newsom began charting a course. Park Merced architect and Newsom campaign contributor Craig Hartman of the firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill was tapped to reimagine the piers south of the Bay Bridge as the central hub for the event, and soon Hartman’s vision for a viewing area beneath a whimsical sail-like canopy was forwarded to the media.

The mayor also issued letters of invitation to form the America’s Cup Organizing Committee (ACOC), a group that would be tasked with soliciting corporate funding for the event. ACOC was convened as a nonprofit corporation, and it’s a powerhouse of wealthy, politically connected, and influential members.

Hollywood mogul Steve Bing, who’s donated millions to the Democratic Party and funded former President Bill Clinton’s 2009 trip to North Korea to rescue two imprisoned American journalists, is on the committee. So is Tom Perkins, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, billionaire, and former mega-yacht owner who was once dubbed “the Captain of Capitalism” by 60 Minutes. George Schultz and his wife, Charlotte, are members. Thomas J. Coates, a powerful San Francisco real estate investor who dumped $1 million into a 2008 California ballot initiative to eliminate rent control, also has a seat. Coates resurfaced in the November 2010 election when he poured $200,000 into local anti-progressive ballot measures and the campaigns of economically conservative supervisorial candidates.

Billionaire Warren Hellman, San Francisco socialite Dede Wilsey, and former Newsom press secretary Peter Ragone are also on ACOC. There are representatives from Wells Fargo, AT&T, and United Airlines. One ACOC member directs a real estate firm that generated $2.5 billion in revenue in 2009. Another is Martin Koffel, CEO of URS Corp., an energy industry heavyweight that made $9.2 billion in revenue in 2009. There’s Richard Kramlich, a cofounder of a Menlo Park venture capital firm that controls $11 billion in “committed capital.” And then there’s Mike Latham, CEO of iShares, which traffics in pooled investment funds worth about $509 billion, according to a BusinessWeek article.

There’s also an honorary branch of ACOC composed of elected officials including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and others. Their role is to help the Cup interface with various governmental agencies to control air space, secure areas of the bay exclusively for the event, set up international broadcasts, and bring foreign crew members and fancy sailboats into the United States without a hassle from immigration authorities.

ACOC is expected to raise $270 million in corporate sponsorships for the America’s Cup. That money will be funneled into the budget for ACEA. It’s unclear whether the $150 million ACEA is required to invest in city piers will be derived from ACOC’s fund drive.

The city also anticipates that ACOC would raise $32 million to help defray municipal costs. “However,” the Budget & Legislative Analyst report cautions, “there is no guarantee that any of the anticipated $32 million in private contributions will be raised.”

A seven-member board, chaired by sports management executive Richard Worth, will direct the ACEA, according to Newsom’s economic advisors, but the other six seats have yet to be filled. ACEA’s newly minted CEO is Craig Thompson, a native Californian who previously worked with a governing body for the Olympics and has helped coordinate major sporting events internationally. In an interview with sports blog Valencia Sailing, Thompson provided some insight on why major corporations might be inspired to donate to the cause. Basically, the Cup is the holy grail of networking events.

“It’s a very difficult economic situation we are going through, and it’s not the best time to be looking for sponsors for a major event,” Thompson acknowledged. “On the other hand, the America’s Cup is one of the very few activities … that offer access to really top-level individuals in terms of education or economic situation. The America’s Cup is a unique platform for a lot of companies that want access to those individuals that are very difficult to reach under normal circumstances. I can tell you for example that Oracle is very pleased with the marketing opportunity the America’s Cup has presented to them. They invite their best customers and are very successful in turning the America’s Cup into a platform for generating business. The same thing can be true for a lot of different companies that need access to wealthy individuals.”

But should San Francisco taxpayers really be subsidizing a networking event for the some of the business world’s richest and most powerful players?

 

TRANSFORMING THE WATERFRONT

Over the past four months, Newsom’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD) has been negotiating with race organizers to hash out a Host City Agreement outlining the terms of bringing the America’s Cup to San Francisco.

The proposal will go before the Board of Supervisor’s Budget & Finance Committee on Dec. 8, and to the full board Dec. 14. A final decision on whether San Francisco will host the race is expected by Dec. 31. ACEA and ACOC will each sign onto the agreement with the City and County of San Francisco.

From the beginning, the event was envisioned as “the twin transformation,” according to OEWD — the America’s Cup would be transformed by attracting greater crowds and heightened commercial interest while San Francisco’s crumbling piers would be revitalized through ACEA’s $150 million investment in port infrastructure.

The plan paints downtown San Francisco as the “America’s Cup Village” during the sailing events, and a study produced by Beacon Economics estimates that the financial boost would come primarily from hordes of visitors flocking to the event — more than 500,000 are expected to attend. The city expects a minimum of 45 race days, including one pre regatta in 2011 and one in 2012 (or two in 2012 if the one in 2011 doesn’t happen), a challenger series in 2013, and a final match in 2013.

The transformation of the city’s waterfront would be dramatic. In addition to the rent-free leases for Piers 30-32, 50, and Seawall Lot 330, ACEA would be granted exclusive use of much of the central waterfront, water, and piers around Mission Bay, and water and land near Islais Creek during the course of the event. Under the Host City Agreement, race organizers would have use of water space spanning Piers 14 to 22 ½; Piers 28, 38, 40, 48, and 54, a portion of Seawall Lot 337, and Pier 80, where a temporary heliport would be sited.

Seawall Lot 330, a 2.5-acre parcel valued by the Port at $33 million, lies at the base of Bryant Street along the Embarcadero and has a nice unimpeded view of the bay. Piers 30-32 span 12.5 acres, and Pier 50 is 20 acres.

The Budget & Legislative Analyst’s study predicts that the ACEA could opt to build a 250-unit condo high-rise on Seawall Lot 330, deemed the most lucrative use. Under the Host City Agreement, the city would be obligated to remove Tidelands Trust provisions from Seawall Lot 330, which guarantee under state law that waterfront property is used for maritime functions or public benefit. Tweaking the law for a single deal would require approval from the State Lands Commission, but Newsom, in his new capacity as lieutenant governor, would cast one of the three votes on that body.

The combination of construction, demolition, lost rent revenue, police and transit, environmental analysis, and other event costs would hit the city with a bill totaling around $64 million, according to the Budget & Legislative Analyst study. Since city government would recoup around $22 million in revenue from hosting the Cup, the net impact would be around $42 million. That doesn’t include the potential $32 million assistance from ACOC.

At the same time, the city would stand to lose another $86.2 million by granting long-term development rights to 35 acres of Port property for 66 to 75 years without charging rent, bringing the total cost to $128 million. OEWD representatives played down that loss in potential revenue, saying past attempts to redevelop piers hadn’t been successful because none could handle the upfront investment to revitalize the crumbling piers.

The Host City Agreement has raised skepticism among Port staff and the Budget Analyst that tempered initial enthusiasm for the event. “The terms of the Host City Agreement will require significant city capital investment and will result in substantial lost revenue to the Port,” a Port study determined. Faith in that plan seems to be eroding and it may be scrapped for an alternative plan that’s cheaper for the city.

The Northern Waterfront alternative substitutes Piers 19-29 as the primary location for the event and eliminates the Mission Bay piers from the equation. Under this scenario, ACEA would invest an estimated $55 million, instead of $150 million. In exchange, it would receive long-term development rights to Piers 30-32 and Seawall 330 on “commercially reasonable terms,” according to a Port staff report.

Board of Supervisors President David Chiu requested that the Port explore that second option more fully, and the Port report notes that it would reduce the strain on Port revenue. The Northern Waterfront plan would cost the Port a total of $15.8 million, instead of $43 million, the report notes. Port staff recommended in its report that both the original agreement and the alternative be forwarded to the full board for consideration.

 

PHANTOM BIDS?

Under the competition’s official protocol, Ellison, as defender of the Cup, has unilateral power to decide where the next regatta will be held. Race organizers have said it’s a toss-up between San Francisco and an unnamed port in Italy — though it’s anyone’s guess how seriously a European site is being considered by a team headquartered at the Golden Gate Yacht Club, a stone’s throw from the Golden Gate Bridge.

According to a San Francisco Chronicle article published in early September, Newsom issued a memo stating that San Francisco was competing against Spain and Italy to become the chosen venue. Valencia was said to be offering a “generous financial bid,” and a group in Rome was rumored to have offered some $645 million to bring the Cup to Italian shores, the memo noted. It was a call for the city to present Ellison with the most attractive deal possible to compel him to pick San Francisco.

Speaking at an Oct. 4 Land Use Committee hearing, OEWD director Jennifer Matz told supervisors: “San Francisco was designated the only city under consideration back in July. Now we are competing against the prime minister of Italy and the king of Spain.”

However, the veracity of those claims came into question in mid-November. Daly, incensed that the Mayor’s Office never communicated with him about the Cup despite wanting to hold it in his sixth supervisorial district, launched his own personal investigation. He fired off an e-mail to Team Alinghi, a prior America’s Cup winner, and began communicating with other European contacts until he got in touch with someone in Valencia’s municipal government.

“I got a call back from a representative who basically said I should know something,” Daly recounted. Valencia, his source said, never submitted a bid to host the Cup. At a Nov. 13 press conference, Valencia’s mayor Rita Barbera confirmed this claim, according to a Spanish press report, expressing disappointment that the city had been eliminated from consideration as a host venue. “There was no formal bidding process,” she charged. She also denied reports that any money had been offered.

Meanwhile, the Budget Analyst was unable to find any concrete evidence that other host city bids had been submitted. “We have nothing to confirm that other offers have been made,” Fred Brousseau of the Budget Analyst’s office told the Guardian.

In response to Guardian queries about whether the Mayor’s Office had evidence that Italy had indeed submitted a bid, Project Manager Kyri McClellan of the OEWD forwarded a one-page resolution from the Italian prime minister assuring race organizers that there would be tax breaks, accelerated approvals, and other perks guaranteed if the Cup came to Italy. However, an Italian journalist who looked over the resolution told the Guardian that the document didn’t appear to be a formal bid, merely a response to a query from race organizers.

Daly has his doubts that either Valencia or the Italian port were ever seriously considered. “I think they were phantom bids,” he said, “created by either Larry Ellison or the Newsom administration … to place pressure on the Board of Supervisors.”

A representative from OEWD told the Guardian that officials have no reason to doubt that the European bids, and accompanying offers of money, were real. However, the city wasn’t privy to race organizer’s discussions about possible European venues. A final decision is expected before the end of the year.

Daly hasn’t held back in voicing opposition to the America’s Cup and blasted it at an Oct. 5 Board meeting. “This tacking around Sup. Daly will not get you in calmer waters,” Daly said. “I told myself I was not going to make a yachting reference. But I will bring a white squall onto this race and onto this Cup, and I will do everything in my power starting on Jan. 8 to make sure these boats never see that water.”

 

WIND IN WHOSE SAILS?

The America’s Cup would undoubtedly bring economic benefit to the area and create work at a time when jobs are scarce. Police officers would get overtime. Restaurant servers would be scrambling to keep up with demand. Construction workers seeking temporary employment would get gigs. Hotels would rake it in. Pier 39 would be booming. However, the Budget Analyst report cautioned: “It is unlikely that any labor benefits would remain in the years after the America’s Cup event is completed.”

Certain small businesses would catch a windfall. John Caine, owner the Hi Dive bar at Pier 28, didn’t hesitate when asked about his opinion on the city hosting the Cup. “Please come fix our piers. It’s a shout-out to Larry Ellison,” he said. Caine said he supports the America’s Cup bid 100 percent, and is excited about the boost it could give his business. The Hi Dive would not be required to relocate under the proposal, he added.

At the same time, other small business would be negatively affected, particularly those among the 87 Port tenants who would be forced to relocate to make way for the America’s Cup. The Budget Analyst’s report also notes that retail businesses in the area whose services had no appeal to race-goers might suffer from reduced access to their stores, since crowding and street closures would shut out their customers.

The sailing community has rallied in support of the Cup, and Newsom has received hundreds of e-mails from yachting enthusiasts from as far away as Hawaii and Florida promising to travel to San Francisco with all their sailing friends to watch the world-famous vessels compete.

Ariane Paul, commodore of a classic wooden boat club called the Master Mariners Benevolent Association, told the Guardian that she was excited about the opportunity for the America’s Cup to showcase sailing on the bay. “In the long term, it’s a win-win,” Paul said. “It would be great to have that boost.” As for the financial terms of the deal, she remained confident, saying, “I don’t think that the city is going to let Larry Ellison walk all over them.”

Sup. Ross Mirkarimi is often politically aligned with Daly, but not when it comes to the issue of the America’s Cup. As a kid growing up on the island of Jamestown, a tiny blue-collar community located off the coast of Rhode Island, Mirkarimi learned to sail and occasionally spent summers working as a deckhand. Every few years, the America’s Cup would come to nearby Newport, transforming the area into a bustling hub and bringing the locals into contact with famous sailors. It left an everlasting impression. When the BMW Oracle Racing Team secured the 33rd Cup off the coast of Valencia, Mirkarimi did a double-take when he saw a photograph of the winning team — his childhood friend from Rhode Island was on the crew.

Mirkarimi told the Guardian he supports bringing the Cup to San Francisco because of the economic boost the area will receive — if the Cup continues to return to San Francisco as it did for 53 years in Newport, he said, the city could look forward to a free gift in improved revenue associated with the event, and that could help quiet the tired annual debates over painful budget cuts.

At the same time, he acknowledged that the Budget Analyst report had prompted what he called healthy skepticism. “I think the onus is on the city and Cup organizers to make sure the benefits far, far outweigh the investment,” Mirkarimi said. “This effort is not just about making one of the wealthiest men in the United States that much more wealthy … That can’t be the case,” he said. “It has to be about what will the Cup do in order to be a win-win for the people of San Francisco.” Mirkarimi said he expected scrutiny of the details of the agreement at the Dec. 8 Budget and Finance Committee hearing: “Naturally, in this time of economic downturn … people want to know, what’s the outlay of cost, and what are we going to get in return?” 

Emergency forum Tues. / 30 on HANC recycling center eviction

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
8

An emergency community forum will be held tonight, Nov. 30, about the Recreation and Parks Department’s plan to evict the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council (HANC) Recycling Center from a parking lot in Golden Gate Park. If Mayor Gavin Newsom and his former chief of staff, Rec & Park General Manager Phil Ginsburg, succeed in their plan to evict the 36-year old recycling center, they’ll kill 10 green jobs, eliminate a rare source of income for poor people, and put an end to a community resource that costs San Francisco taxpayers nothing.

HANC believes the recycling center is being targeted by Newsom’s administration as a form of political payback, since the progressive organization opposed Proposition L, the sit / lie ordinance, which Newsom supported.

Ginsburg wants to evict the recycling center, which pays rent to the city, and replace it with a community gardening center that would cost $250,000. The shaded lot doesn’t seem like an ideal site for growing produce.

A memo issued Nov. 29 from Ginsburg to Rec & Park Commissioners notes that it is legal for the department to move forward with the eviction without commission approval. Apparently, Newsom’s administration intends to send 10 people to the unemployment line and kick a 36-year-old green resource to the curb without any public input, despite receiving 400 postcards from San Francisco residents opposing the eviction. The Rec & Park Commission will take up the issue of the new community garden center at its Thurs., Dec. 2 meeting.

Tonight’s emergency forum, organized by Keep Arboretum Free, is an attempt to open up a space for public dialogue.

A stakeholder meeting took place this afternoon with Ginsburg, District 5 Sup. Ross Mirkarimi, Department of the Environment Director Melanie Nutter, representatives from the San Francisco Police Department, represenatives from the offices of Assembly Member Tom Ammiano and City Attorney Dennis Herrera, HANC, and area residents.

Jim Rhoads of the HANC Recycling Center told the Guardian just after the meeting, “They’re going to evict us by the end of December. That’s their goal. The mayor has it in for us and he wants to get us out before he leaves.”

The recycling center, located at Frederick and Arguello streets, operates a buyback program for recyclable materials as well as a San Francisco native plant nursery. Residents from the Inner Sunset Park Neighbors have voiced complaints about “quality-of-life issues” that they link with some of the center’s patrons. During buyback hours, held from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., people arrive with shopping carts filled of cans and bottles to exchange for small amounts of cash. Some of them are homeless.

Representatives from HANC, Rec & Park, and the Inner Sunset Park Neighbors have been invited to speak at tonight’s forum. “There are strongly felt opinions on both sides,” a flier for the event notes. “In the interest of a broad discussion, a number of long time local residents organized this forum for a full public airing of the issues prior to the Dec. 2 Commission meeting.”

The forum will be held tonight, Tuesday, Nov. 30, from 7 to 9 p.m. at St. John of God, 5th Avenue at Irving St.

To voice your opinion about Rec & Park’s plan to evict HANC, call Phil Ginsburg at 415-831-2701 or email him at Philip.Ginsburg@sfgov.org.

Green vs. “green”

Jesse Hawthorne Ficks
-
12
Green vs. “green”

rebeccab@sfbg.com

Years ago, Greg Gaar was a scavenger, wandering the neighborhoods around Twin Peaks picking up bottles and other kinds of recyclable trash. He began working at the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council (HANC) Recycling Center in 1982.

During his tenure, a project designed primarily to divert waste from the landfill expanded to include a unique San Francisco native plant nursery. Located on a converted parking lot on Frederick Street near Lincoln Boulevard, the recycling center is a drop-off for recyclable materials, including used veggie oil, and a source for soil and 65 species of potted plants.

Gaar started small. “I took some seeds,” he explained, “and scattered them into a flat. They came up like fur on a dog’s back.” Over the years, he researched the natural history of the area, saved seeds, and cultivated the grounds surrounding the recycling center. HANC also converted a traffic triangle across the street into a thriving garden.

The Recreation and Parks Department, directed by Phil Ginsburg — former chief of staff to Mayor Gavin Newsom — is seriously considering a plan to evict HANC recycling center and replace it with a garden resource center.

While trading one garden center for another might not seem like a big deal, it appears to be an attack on poor people who make their living recycling cans and bottles, a group that organized to oppose Proposition L, the sit-lie ordinance that Newsom supported in this election.

Or as HANC Executive Director Ed Dunn put it: “He’s going to take it from his enemies and give it to his friends.”

The HANC recycling center has leased Rec and Park property since its inception in 1974, and it’s been at its current location for 30 years. HANC does not receive any city funding for the center, and it pays a small amount in rent for use of the parking lot. It processes roughly 160 tons of recycling per month.

Newsom has worked hard to cultivate his reputation as a green mayor and promote green-job creation, but evicting the recycling center would kill 10 green jobs. Many of the employees were formerly homeless and previously earned petty cash gathering cans to exchange at the center’s buyback station. They were hired without any help from San Francisco taxpayers and now they’re earning living wages while diverting waste from the landfill.

But some neighborhood residents are annoyed by the presence of people who arrive at the center with shopping carts filled to the brim with bottles and cans that they can exchange for cash. Buyback hours are held from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., so during those times, people who haul around bundles of recyclables line up to receive modest rewards for their hours of effort.

HANC, a progressive organization, publicly and vehemently opposed Prop. L, the voter-approved ordinance that bans sitting and lying down on city sidewalks. Newsom enthusiastically endorsed Prop. L.

Dunn believes the recycling center is being targeted due to HANC’s position on that issue. “It’s all about political payback,” says Dunn. Incidentally, Haight voters rejected sit-lie and HANC sees the pending recycling-center eviction as part of the same agenda. “It’s all part of the gentrification that’s enveloping San Francisco,” said Jim Rhoads, who chairs the HANC Recycling Committee.

Once word of the plans got out, letters started pouring into to Newsom’s and Ginsburg’s offices from the Sierra Club, San Francisco Tomorrow, the Senior Action Network, and other organizations. Additionally, the center’s supporters mailed at least 400 postcards opposing the eviction.

Residents have voiced complaints about the shopping-cart recyclers, some of whom are homeless. The Inner Sunset Park Neighbors (ISPN), which is petitioning Rec and Park to evict the recycling center, has a message posted on its website linking the shopping-cart pushers with “quality-of-life issues such as aggressive panhandling, drug use/dealing, and public safety.” ISPN also charges that the recyclers swipe cans and bottles from rolling curbside bins. The neighborhood group had not responded to requests for an interview by press time.

Rhoads believes that if the recycling buyback program is removed, it would only encourage panhandling — after all, people already lacking basic resources would lose a critical source of income. “People will be very desperate,” he said. According to the results of a HANC survey, one in six recyclers regularly turning up at the center to exchange bottles for cash sleeps outside.

The Recreation and Park Commission will discuss the possible HANC eviction at its Dec. 2 meeting. And since the recycling center is on a month-to-month lease, the 36-year-old green resource could soon suffer eviction. There’s likely to be significant resistance, since the HANC Recycling Center has forged partnerships with urban-agriculture projects throughout the city.

It was a fiscal sponsor of the Garden for the Environment and donated several tons of cardboard for mulching at Hayes Valley Farm. The HANC nursery project has distributed plants to urban agriculture projects throughout the city, including school garden plots, urban habitat corridors designed to protect rare species, and the Mission Greenbelt Project, a network of sidewalk gardens in the Mission.

Details on the proposed garden resource center that would be installed in lieu of the HANC Recycling Center are sketchy. An artist’s rendering of the plan, drawn up by the city’s Department of Public Works, envisions an outdoor classroom amphitheatre, raised garden beds, a semi dwarf orchard, and a composting area. However, Guardian inquiries to Rec and Park requesting more specific details about funding and operation went unanswered by press time. 

Breaking down the cost of hosting the America’s Cup

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
0
Breaking down the cost of hosting the America’s Cup

San Francisco’s Budget and Legislative Analyst has released a report outlining the costs and benefits of hosting the 34th America’s Cup in San Francisco. Bottom line: If the world-famous yacht race is held here, it will cost the city an estimated $42 million.

The Guardian will publish a more detailed report in coming weeks, but for now, here are a few highlights from the report, which was requested by Sup. Chris Daly and released to the media on Nov. 18.

* The overall cost breaks down like this: The Budget Analyst estimates that the city would receive an estimated $22 million in revenue, and incur new costs of $64 million, resulting in a net loss of $42 million.

* The city would receive an estimated $3.6 million from property tax revenues from new development (probably luxury condos) if the event organizers built on the port properties they’d receive as part of the deal. Billionaire Larry Ellison, who has the ultimate say in selecting the venue for the America’s Cup, would receive several port properties rent-free for 66 to 75 years, under leases which haven’t yet been formally approved. However, if the city obtained a private developer through a competitive process instead, it could receive increased tax revenues of $89.8 million. According to the Budget Analyst, this estimated net loss of $86.2 million “is in addition to the estimated net loss … of $42.1 million.”

* The major benefit to hosting the prestigious yacht race in San Francisco would be an estimated $1.2 billion in new spending in San Francisco’s economy, and the Budget Analyst predicts a range of $928 million to $1.6 billion in economic activity – undoubtedly a good thing for a troubled economy.

* However, the creation of “9,000 jobs” you may have heard about isn’t as simple as it sounds. According to the report: “All ‘jobs’ predicted … are not permanent full time jobs, and therefore would not result in hiring 8,840 employees.” Instead, the Budget Analyst prefers to frame it in terms of work hours, noting that the additional work would be either absorbed by the existing workforce (as in a server waiting on more customers per hour), greater overtime for the existing workforce (think police), or temporary jobs.

The Budget Analyst is careful to state that the report is not meant as a recommendation one way or another for hosting the America’s Cup. “However,” it states, “it is the responsibility of the Budget and Legislative Analyst to report the facts to the Board of Supervisors.”

Processing the mayoral transition

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
5
Processing the mayoral transition

The question of who will be the next mayor of San Francisco wasn’t any clearer by the end of the Nov. 16 Board of Supervisors meeting, but many expressed a desire for an open and transparent process with accountability to the public. The board approved a motion by Board President David Chiu to have the Clerk of the Board propose an process for selecting a successor mayor, which will come under consideration at the next meeting. But with only a handful of board meetings left before the new board is sworn in on Jan. 8, there is a high level of anticipation.

Clerk of the Board Angela Calvillo confirmed that her office is drafting a proposed process for mayoral selection. Calvillo said the proposal would be submitted for consideration at next week’s meeting, and it will be available to the public on the city website by Friday, Nov. 19.

Essentially, the board could choose from a number of options at its next meeting on how to appoint a successor mayor once Mayor Gavin Newsom vacates office. Whatever the Board decides prior to Jan. 3, when Newsom is sworn in as Lt. Governor, will not have the force of law, since there won’t yet be a vacancy. So a second vote will have to be taken Jan. 4 to make the official appointment. Newsom has said he is “99 percent sure” that he will vacate the Office of the Mayor on Jan. 3.

According to Santa Clara County attorneys — who are filling in for City Attorney Dennis Herrera since he has a conflict-of-interest as a mayoral candidate — neither the Charter nor the Municipal Code dictates a specific process for the Board to use in selecting a successor mayor. So, the board could either follow the regular appointments procedure under the current Board Rules, or it could devise its own process.

The Clerk of Board is now hammering out that unique process, as directed by the board, and the board may vote to modify and adopt that process next week — but since a vote to adopt it would constitute an amendment to the board rules, it would require a super-majority of eight votes.

If there aren’t eight votes, then the board may still opt to set forth an appointment process under the current board rules. “I strongly believe that we do have the ability to effectuate an appointment without amending the board rules,” Sup. Chris Daly said. Daly told the Guardian that he has submitted a motion to take nominations and appoint a successor mayor, which will appear on the adoption without committee reference calendar at next Tuesday’s Board meeting. However, a similar motion put forth by Sup. John Avalos wasn’t able to gain the needed support.

If the board went through the normal appointments process, it would require sending nominees through the Rules Committee for consideration – but since it wouldn’t be practical to have just three members of the board recommend a mayoral appointment to the full board, all 11 supervisors could sit as a Committee of the Whole instead.

The timing is important because if supervisors cannot agree upon a process, or gain enough support for a single nominee, then the task will fall to the new Board of Supervisors, who will be sworn in Jan. 8. If the current board doesn’t reach a decision by Jan. 4, Board President David Chiu will automatically become acting mayor. Once the new board is sworn in, it can continue whatever appointment process has been set in motion or decide to initiate a new process for appointing a successor mayor. If the current board appoints a successor mayor, however, the new board cannot revoke or otherwise affect that appointment.

There are a slew of questions still at play. For example, under conflict-of-interest laws, when some one is nominated as successor mayor, he or she must leave the room and is barred from influencing the process in any way. The idea was bandied about at the Nov. 16 Board meeting to require nominees to respond to questions from the board as part of a public forum, but it’s unclear how a supervisor who has been nominated could respond to questions from his or her colleagues while being sequestered and prohibited from influencing the process.

Although word went out that interested members of the public should show up at City Hall around 4 p.m. Nov. 16 to weigh in on the discussion about appointing a successor mayor, the conversation didn’t get underway till much later.

Sup. John Avalos had submitted a motion to vote on an interim mayor and then vote a second time to ratify that appointment once Mayor Gavin Newsom had vacated office. However, his motion was amended to simply take public input and discuss the process of appointing a successor mayor.

Members of the public waited patiently, and when it was time, they lined up behind the speakers podium wearing neon sunburst stickers that read, “Let the Sun Shine In!” Local writer, artist, and activist Tommi Avicolli Mecca even sang the refrain of the song by that name, before imploring the Supes to “Get this done now, and give us a good, progressive interim mayor.”

Labor activist Gabriel Haaland urged the current board to agree upon an appointment instead of handing the responsibility over to the next board. “People who’ve never held an office hour in their life should not be making this decision,” Haaland said.

Christopher Cook highlighted the challenges that the new mayor would face. “We’re talking about a less-than-average amount of time to prepare for an absolute maelstrom,” with regard to the city budget, Cook noted.

“Let the sun shine in” seemed to be the catchphrase of the evening. Before the public weighed in, Sup. Chris Daly called for an open, transparent process for the appointment of the new mayor. “Conversations about mayoral transition have been happening behind closed doors, not in public session, for the better part of this past year,” Daly charged. “It’s time to hear from the public.”

But just how, exactly, the appointment process will work is anything but clear and sunny – at least for the time being.

Meanwhile, Judge Quentin Kopp, who was a member of the Board of Supervisors when a successor mayor was appointed on Dec. 4, 1978 — one week after the assassinations of Mayor George Moscone and Sup. Harvey Milk — said the process of choosing a new mayor was simpler back then.

In that case, then-Sup. Dianne Feinstein was the only nominee. She was appointed with six votes. Two, including Kopp, voted no, and there were two absences (Harvey Milk had been assassinated one week prior, and Dan White was in jail). Feinstein, who was made to leave the room during the vote, abstained. However, before the vote was called, Feinstein was able to vote against a motion for a continuance — a power she likely would not have had if current political-reform laws were in place.

“It’s simple,” Kopp said. “Why are they complicating it?”

He scoffed at the circuitous discussion happening now, and said some one else had called him with the same inquiry earlier that same day. “Once again, our overpaid supervisors are making work for themselves,” he said. “It’s called busywork.”

And that might be the most insightful statement yet – after all, while the process points are debated over and over again, there is more time for supervisors to determine just who might be able to collect the six votes needed to be elected mayor of San Francisco.

Down on the farm

Jesse Hawthorne Ficks
-
0
Down on the farm

rebeccab@sfbg.com

Sherman Island may barely register for motorists traveling over the Antioch Bridge and through the delta on Highway 160. Almost wholly owned by the Department of Water Resources, the roughly 10,000-acre patch of Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta flatland is barely developed, and probably home to more cows than people. It lies at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, where freshwater mixes with the salty seawater of the San Francisco Bay.

What isn’t obvious at first glance is that Sherman Island was once host to highly productive agriculture — but as delta water quality diminished, farmers saw their crop yields plummet. Larry Del Chiaro, who formerly headed the Sherman Island Landowners Association, used to grow asparagus, wheat, barley, safflower, milo, hay, and other crops on the island. But today, like nearly all the others who previously raised crops there, he no longer has property there and has moved on. His story illustrates how California water policies have benefited one group while affecting the livelihoods of the people who live in the state’s central water hub, the delta.

“I was a third-generation farmer on the island,” Del Chiaro told the Guardian on a hot August day in the city of Pittsburg. “My grandfather started it. My father, his brothers, my cousins were all on the island farming.” Del Chiaro majored in soil science in the 1970s and was interested in increasing crop yields, so he set up test plots and was closely monitoring their progress.

But by 1987, the yields were plummeting dramatically — a drought had hit the state, and Sherman Island farmers weren’t getting enough fresh water to sustain their crops. Instead of going to irrigate farmland in the delta, much of the scarce freshwater was being pumped south through the State Water Project to agricultural lands in the arid San Joaquin Valley, causing the delta water to get saltier and saltier.

It presented a problem that was particularly acute in that location. “Sherman Island, to use a cliché, is the plug for the Sacramento Delta,” Del Chiaro said. “We’re the last one to get the freshwater, and the first one to get the saltwater intrusion.”

The North Delta Water Agency, a regional water body, had a contract on behalf of the island’s landowners with the Department of Water Resources (DWR) that guaranteed a certain level of water quality. But DWR’s contractual obligations weren’t met that year. “As the drought continued, our water quality diminished, and diminished, and diminished, till it got to the point where we had to rely on Mother Nature for rainfall,” Del Chiaro said. “And when we didn’t get rainfall, our crops suffered.”

Under state water law, Sherman Island landowners had riparian water rights, which allowed them use of the freshwater that flowed past their land. The overarching problem, he said, was that DWR couldn’t meet contractual obligations to both the delta farmers and the San Joaquin Valley farmers in a dry year because it had over-promised water deliveries through the State Water Project. “We have no control over what Mother Nature gives us in terms of rainfall and the snow pack,” he said. “So they were being overly optimistic in terms of all those contracts.”

With the help of consultant Patrick Porgans and a San Francisco attorney, Del Chiaro and the 26 other Sherman Island landowners sued DWR for damages. In 1991, the state settled for $3.6 million, and the farmers were paid for not drawing water out of the delta. Soon after, DWR bought up the island. Once the water agency took control, it eliminated the need for DWR to satisfy contractual obligations to provide freshwater to the Sherman Island farmers. The farmers had cleared out, and the agency’s problem was solved.

“Compared to the San Joaquin Valley, the vast amount of acreage out there, the people that they employ, and the business compared to the delta, we’re kind of a drop in the bucket,” Del Chiaro noted. “Still, there are the businesses in the delta that basically survive off of our farming operation.”

Sherman Island is more well-known to recreational boaters and travelers, and Chris and Dawn Gulick provide a place for delta vacationers at Eddo’s Harbor & RV Park, located on Gallagher Slough on the east side of the island. Eddo’s wasn’t always a harbor and RV park — when Chris Gulick’s father started the business in 1967, fishing was the primary attraction and the small harbor maintained a fleet of fishing boats for rent. The State Water Project came online around the same time, marking the beginning of freshwater pumping out of the delta.

As delta water quality worsened over the years, there were fewer fish to be caught, so over the decades it became less practical to maintain the fishing vessels. Today, the fishing boats have been sold, and Eddo’s primarily gets its business from recreational boaters looking for guest slips or travelers who find their way to the quiet waterfront park to stay in their RVs.

Chris Gulick emphasized the larger picture during an interview about water issues in the delta, but he acknowledged that his business had been affected by what he saw as the state’s misguided water policies. “When we got here, the striped bass fishery was robust,” he said, “and it slowly has declined, and it steadily has declined.”

Gulick said countless experts and researchers had been in and out of the delta over the years, but he felt that the core problem had to do with governance of the system and the fact that water agencies had over-promised the water.

“The problem with the delta, or the water situation, is that the people that are in policy and are writing these guidelines don’t have a vested interest,” he said. “A lot of them don’t know a whole lot about this, but they’re the experts. They’re the ones who are supposed to be writing the plans. They don’t have a clue — and that is a prevalent attitude to the experts who come out and talk to us.”

PG&E’s priorities and the San Bruno pipeline

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
0
PG&E’s priorities and the San Bruno pipeline

A few weeks ago, the Guardian reported that Pacific Gas & Electric Company was granted $5 million to upgrade a portion of its San Bruno gas pipeline, but never got around to doing it. A rupture along that section of pipe caused the deadly Sept. 9 explosion that took the lives of eight people, destroyed 37 homes, and left an entire San Bruno neighborhood traumatized.

What did PG&E spend the money on instead? Presumably, the $5 million went toward other repairs that were deemed to be higher priorities. But in the meantime, the company also managed to bankroll an eight-figure CEO salary, a state ballot initiative, and a controversial SmartMeter program, just to name a few. Just for comparison, here are a few examples of how $5 million breaks down for PG&E.

·    It’s less than half the boss’ pay. According to Forbes.com, PG&E CEO Peter Darbee earned $10,559,428 in 2009 in total compensation. $5 million represents 47 percent of the top exec’s pay.

·    It’s 10.8 percent of what PG&E spent on Proposition 16. The utility spent $46 million on Prop. 16, a failed June ballot initiative that would have effectively snuffed out PG&E’s competition from community choice aggregation programs. Had it poured just $41 million down the toilet instead, there might have been some left over for things like aging infrastructure.

·    It’s .22 percent of PG&E’s SmartMeter program budget. Recent news reports about the former SmartMeter director, better known as a sock puppet, note that he presided over a $2.2 billion program before submitting his resignation. $5 million represents a mere fraction of one percent of the budget for the controversial SmartMeter program.

PG&E exec fails as a spy

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
3
PG&E exec fails as a spy

You’d think California’s largest utility company would know a thing or two about spying. From toxic groundwater plumes to deadly pipeline explosions, Pacific Gas & Electric Company has given plenty of Californians reason to mobilize against their practices, and countless campaigns have been launched against the monopolistic energy giant. Yet former SmartMeter program director William Devereaux revealed himself to be an amateur when he tried using an anonymous email address to infiltrate his activist opponents — with an account that displays his real name.

The Chronicle is reporting that Devereaux resigned from his post as director of the $2.2 billion SmartMeter program once the news broke that he’d been outed by the very anti-SmartMeter activists he later admitted to keeping tabs on.

It wasn’t too difficult to figure it out. Devereaux attempted to join an activist listserv for the EMF Safety Coalition, an organization that opposes SmartMeter installations. Apparently assuming that his name would be hidden, he signed his e-mail to Sandi Maurer, the group moderator, as “Ralph.” Here’s the message:

On Nov 4, 2010, at 3:23 PM, William Devereaux <manasota99@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Sandi,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, I’ve been travelling a lot.  I live in Oakland where Smart meters have been sweeping across town and wanted to learn more about them and join the conversation to see what I can do to help out here.

Thanks,

Ralph

Just a regular old SmartMeter-hating guy called Ralph. Except that until the news story broke, a Google search of the name beside his email address yielded countless PG&E press releases in which the utility executive publicly extolls the virtues of the electricity-usage meters, which activists fear will expose people to unhealthy levels of radiation. Now that he’s been outed, said Google search speaks to Devereaux’s rather deficient skills as an infiltrator instead.

“We think he’s been lurking on one of our lists for a couple of months,” activist Joshua Hart with Stop Smart Meters told the Guardian. Hart said SmartMeter protesters got a surprise when they showed up at a Sonoma County location a couple weeks ago to stage a demonstration against the PG&E contractor hired to install SmartMeters. By the time they got there, all of the contractor’s trucks and signs had vanished. It was like they’d known what to expect. “His judgment has been called into question,” Hart said, “and his honesty has been called into question.” Apparently, his career has now been called into question too.

Prison for killer cop

Jesse Hawthorne Ficks
-
0
Prison for killer cop

rebeccab@sfbg.com

On Nov. 5, former BART Police officer Johannes Mehserle was sentenced to two years in state prison for fatally shooting Oscar Grant, a 22-year-old African American rider, on the Fruitvale train platform on New Year’s Day 2009.

Mehserle, who is white, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in July in an incident that has become charged with racial undertones. He received credit for 292 days served in jail so far, which will considerably reduce his time in prison. It was the lightest prison sentence he could have received for the crime.

Grant supporters gathered in Frank Ogawa Plaza in downtown Oakland to express anger and sorrow upon hearing news of the sentence. “I’m not shocked,” said Cat Brooks, who helped organize an afternoon rally for the Coalition for Justice for Oscar Grant. “But I’m disgusted and distraught. It seems like the justice system didn’t work.”

After the rally came to a close and night fell, protesters spilled into the streets and marched toward the Fruitvale BART Station, the scene of the crime. But after a dozen car windows were smashed along the way, police officers in riot gear corralled the group into a residential neighborhood. Police then placed 152 protesters under mass arrest, mostly on charges of unlawful assembly. Roughly two-thirds of those arrested were Oakland residents, according to the Oakland Police Department, while others were from Berkeley, San Francisco, Hayward, and other local cities.

 

COMMUNITY RESPONDS

A stage outside Oakland City Hall was transformed into a venue for personal expression in the wake of the sentencing. Community members lined up to air their frustrations and resolve to keep fighting. They piled flowers onto a shrine that had been created with a picture of Grant’s face. Some painted pictures, while others gave spoken word or hip-hop performances. Several told stories of loved ones who’d died in police shootings.

Cephus Johnson, Grant’s uncle, was at the Los Angeles courtroom where Mehserle was sentenced, but shared some thoughts with the Guardian beforehand. Asked what he’d thought when the verdict had been announced, Johnson said, “My first thought was that we’re witnessing the criminal justice system failing to work as it should have worked.” If the sentence fell short of the 14-year maximum, he said, “it will be another slap in the face, signifying that black and brown men are worthless.”

East Bay labor organizer Charles Dubois was among those attending the Nov. 5 rally. “Every black parent, every brown parent, lives with this nightmare of their children being killed by some cops because they thought they had a gun,” Dubois said in an interview with the Guardian. “It’s been happening since I was a kid. It’s been happening then and it’s happening now, and it’s going to keep happening until we do something.”

California Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-SF) also weighed in during a phone call with the Guardian. “This verdict is outrageous,” he said. “It’s Dan White all over again.”

 

JUDGE DROPS GUN ENHANCEMENT

Judge Robert Perry sided with arguments presented by Mehserle’s defense attorney, Michael Rains, when he levied a reduced punishment. Mehserle could have served up to 14 years prison for involuntary manslaughter committed while wielding a gun, but Perry tossed out the firearm enhancement.

“No reasonable trier of fact could have concluded that Mehserle intentionally fired his gun,” the judge was quoted in media reports as saying. But that appears to be what the jury found, as the prosecution argued in a presentencing memorandum.

“The evidence was presented regarding the use of the gun, and in discussing the use of the gun in the jury room, somehow or another the jury decided he had used the gun illegally,” criminal defense attorney and National Lawyers Guild observer Walter Riley told the Guardian. “One has to believe the jury expected him to have exposure to a greater amount of jail time because of that.”

Perry said he believed Mehserle suffered a “muscle memory accident” that led him to draw and fire his service weapon instead of his Taser, a cornerstone of the defense’s case.

Rains wrote to the court prior to sentencing that jurors should never have been allowed to apply the firearm enhancement to an involuntary manslaughter conviction “because in this case, there is no logical way to square a verdict of involuntary manslaughter and a finding that Mehserle intended to use his gun.”

Prosecutor David Stein of the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office countered that the jury’s conviction showed they believed Mehserle intended to shoot, but not to kill, Grant. Yet Perry agreed with the defense, conceding he had mistakenly permitted the jury to enhance Mehserle’s sentence.

Riley said he sympathized with frustrations over the gun enhancement getting dismissed. “The use of guns is too prevalent in circumstances where law enforcement comes in contact with young black people,” he said. “Our society — our civil society, our judicial authority, and our communities — have to hold government and law enforcement officers to a higher level of accountability in their interactions with citizens. When people with guns shoot an inordinate number of people of one group, it’s worth tremendous scrutiny.”

 

ANOTHER NIGHT IN JAIL

Twice before, activists took to the streets in furious protest over this case. In January 2009, things escalated to the point where cars were set ablaze. In July 2010, a street rally gave way to rioting and looting. So on Nov. 5, many downtown Oakland storeowners boarded up and closed business early in anticipation of a third wave of vandalism.

Yet the turnout was smaller than the previous events. And while there were reports of smashed car windshields and other instances of vandalism along the circuitous path of the march, there was far less property destruction.

The community affair outside Oakland City Hall ended around 6 p.m., when the permit expired. Soon after, activists spilled into the intersection of 14th and Broadway streets, then began advancing down 14th Street chanting “No Justice! No Peace!” and “The whole system is guilty!” The march turned right onto Madison Street, then left onto 10th Street.

A police helicopter with a spotlight kept pace overhead while it progressed, and when protesters reached Laney College, police officers in riot gear blocked them in. So protesters cut through a park and wandered in a pack until they reached the intersection of East 18th Street and Sixth Avenue in a residential neighborhood. Once again, police surrounded the protesters. This time, the crowd was trapped.

Rachel Jackson, an activist who was barricaded in, began sounding off. “We were going to Fruitvale,” she explained. “We wanted to go to the scene of the crime. All night the police have been trying to suppress our free speech.” When a nearby TV news reporter asked her about windows that had been busted along the march, she was incensed. “We will not equate glass with Oscar Grant’s life!” she responded. “If we have to come out ourselves and board up windows, we’ll do that. But what we are concerned with right now is murder.”

Reporters were allowed to exit the confined area, but if anyone else had been inclined to leave peacefully, they were unable to. Police issued a call on a megaphone telling activists, “You are all under arrest. Do not resist arrest.” By the time the mass arrest was underway, public information officer Jeff Thomason told a group of reporters that there were more police officers on the scene than protesters.

“When the rocks were being thrown, it was declared an unlawful assembly,” Thomason explained. He said a dispersal order had been issued simultaneously. Yet it would have been impossible for the trapped crowd to comply with such an order.

Meanwhile, a resident of the Oakland neighborhood who had come outside when the commotion began told the Guardian that she sympathized with the protesters. “The only thing I don’t condone is the vandalism,” said Dyshia Harvey, who surveyed the scene from behind a fence with her six-year-old son.

Harvey had been anticipating word of Mehserle’s sentencing. “I was upset. I was frustrated, angry, and hurt” by the outcome, she said. But she wasn’t surprised. “I already knew we weren’t going to get no justice,” she said. “For taking a life, 14 years isn’t enough. It makes you feel like there’s no justice in the justice system.”

 

NOT OVER YET

Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley has not stated whether her office will appeal Perry’s ruling. Rains told reporters in L.A. that he would appeal Mehserle’s involuntary manslaughter conviction.

Meanwhile, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice released a statement indicating that a federal investigation is in the works. “The Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California have been closely monitoring the local prosecution of this case,” a USDOJ prepared statement notes. “Now that the state prosecution has concluded and consistent with department policy, we will thoroughly review the prosecution and its underlying investigation to determine whether further action is appropriate.”

BART settled a civil lawsuit filed on behalf of Grant’s daughter in January that is likely to total $5.1 million, according to civil rights attorney John Burris’ website. Two other lawsuits, one on behalf of Grant’s mother and one on behalf of five other men on the Fruitvale station platform that night, have been consolidated into a single trial that will begin in May 2011, Burris told the Guardian.

Meanwhile, Grant’s death marked just one of three police shootings that occurred Jan. 1, 2009 — the other two cases also sparked allegations of civil-rights violations, since both victims were African American men. Adolph Grimes, 22, was fatally shot 14 times, including 12 times in the back, by a group of New Orleans police officers, who erroneously believed he was a suspect who’d fled the scene of a shooting.

The same night, Robert Tolan, 23 — the son of a Major League Baseball player — was shot and seriously injured outside his home in an upscale Houston suburb by a police officer who mistakenly believed Tolan had stolen the vehicle he was driving. Sgt. Jeffrey Cotton, the white officer who shot him, was ultimately acquitted.

 

CREATIVE OUTLET

Not everyone in Oakland reacted to Mehserle’s sentence by charging through the streets. The Oscar Grant Foundation, which facilitated live art performances at Frank Ogawa Plaza Nov. 5, is calling for youth groups, Bay Area schools, and adults to participate in an art and poetry showcase inspired by Grant. Information can be found online at IamOscarGrant.org. The foundation is advertising a $1,000 grand prize. Three artists from the Trust Your Struggle Collective didn’t wait to join a contest, however, and spent the afternoon of Nov. 5 adorning plywood covering the Youth Radio building windows at 17th Street and Telegraph Avenue, a few blocks from Frank Ogawa Plaza.

The mural displayed a prominent image of Grant holding his daughter, Tatiana, who was four years old when Grant was killed. The pair are flanked by the names and figures of more than 20 people killed by police.

“We asked the youth inside what they wanted to see,” Miguel Perez, an artist with the Trust Your Struggle Collective, told the Guardian as he looked over the mural. “They said they wanted to see the names of people killed by police nationwide, not just in the Bay Area. The list is so huge, it’s hard to pick out specific names.”

Perez said Trust Your Struggle is a group of artists and educators with social-justice backgrounds who create art as activism. “Being a person of color, I’ve had racist stuff said to me by the police,” Perez said. “It seems like it’s slowly been changing for the past hundreds of years, but it’s still not enough — enough being fairness.” *

Mehserle gets two years, Oakland braces for reaction

Sasha Cuttler
-
3
Mehserle gets two years, Oakland braces for reaction

***UPDATED with video***

Activists gathered in Oakland are reacting to the sentencing of former BART cop Johannes Mehserle, who has reportedly received a two-year prison sentence – the minimum possible of what could have been a 14-year sentence – for shooting Oscar Grant to death on a train platform early New Year’s Day 2009.

“We will provide a place for people to express their emotion. Civil disobedience is absolutely called for. We will continue to organize and mobilize. The nation has said, ‘No more!’,” said Cat Brooks, an organizer with the Coalition for Justice for Oscar Grant.

A television reporter asked whether she was saying that a violent reaction would be justified, and she corrected him by saying, “I said the anger was righteous.”

Listening to the verdict via a telephone call, Brooks literally shook with anger and sorrow when she initially thought that Mehserle got off with just probation. “This is beyond unacceptable,” she said, offering her “deepest, deepest sympathy” to Grant’s family members and those who “witnessed the execution of their friend.”

The judge reportedly threw out a gun enhancement charge, saying it was not justified, and that he believed the shooting was a tragic accident, not an intentional killing by Mehserle. The judge also gave Mehserle credit for the 292 days he’s already served in custody, meaning that with time off for good behavior, he’ll likely serve less than another year. The Guardian has reporters and photographers with the crowd in Oakland, so check back for updates.

Video by Alex Emslie

Election 2010: Jim Meko’s “not going anywhere”

Jesse Hawthorne Ficks
-
4
Election 2010: Jim Meko’s “not going anywhere”

D6 candidate Jim Meko was with campaign volunteers Jake Dues and Anthony Faber at his print shop on 10th Street near the end of the night on Nov. 2.

Meko and the others had ordered pizza, and a couple cans of Bud Light were out on the table. It was a quiet scene, since it was clear that he wasn’t one of the front-runners. Meko seemed disappointed by his loss, but kept a positive attitude.

“Unlike other losing candidates,” he said, “I’m not going anywhere. So I won’t be dwelling on what I could have done to win, but what I can do next for the district.”

He mentioned his involvement with the SoMa leadership council and Western SoMa community plan, which he has been involved with for years.

Election 2010: Debra Walker holds out

Jesse Hawthorne Ficks
-
1
Election 2010: Debra Walker holds out

San Francisco Democrats milled about the Great American Music Hall, where a screen displaying election results was the centerpiece of the room. D6 candidate Debra Walker was thanking campaign volunteers and hugging supporters when we caught up with her.

But with Jane Kim ahead in the race, the celebration was somewhat subdued in her corner of the room.

Still, Walker was hopeful. “Now I think it’s going to be about the distribution of second choice votes,” she told us. “It’s going to be a nailbiter. In fact, I’m pretty confident about it. I’m really hopeful that we’ll gain the votes we need.”

 

Election 2010: Theresa Sparks supporters await results

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
0
Election 2010: Theresa Sparks supporters await results

District 6 candidate Theresa Sparks showed up fashionably late for her own election night gathering at Don Ramon’s Mexican restaurant in the South of Market neighborhood. Election results are still coming in, and she told the crowd, “We’ll just watch it together and see what happens.” Early results show Jane Kim as the favored candidate in the district so far, but as everyone here seems to be telling one another, “it’s going to be a long night.”

Rob Black of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce was in attendance, as well as Francis Tsang, who works in Mayor Gavin Newsom’s press office. 

Katra Briel said she had known Sparks for years, and was one of the first to volunteer for her campaign. Being out on the streets and talking to voters about the election was “really enlightening,” she said, but “sometimes the things reminded me of the 7th grade — it seemed like more of a popularity contest than being about the issues.” Briel said she sees Sparks as “the kind of person we need in government.”

John Zowine, another campaign volunteer, said he was inspired to do phone banking for Sparks after a five-year stretch without being involved in any campaigns. “I was really impressed with her,” he said. Asked how he was feeling about the outcome of the race, Zowine said, “I would think that with all those endorsements, and Gavin’s support, she should do really well.”

 

 

 

Calls for justice

Jesse Hawthorne Ficks
-
0
Calls for justice

rebeccab@sfbg.com

Since the fatal shooting of Oscar Grant III on New Year’s Day in 2009, a photograph of the 22-year-old African American man from Hayward has become iconic. The picture shows Grant’s smiling face, and the black ski cap and a hooded sweatshirt he was wearing the day it was taken.

It has been copied onto posters and displayed like wallpaper in downtown Oakland cafes and along city blocks, manipulated with different hues and accents to produce scores of flyers, banners, hip-hop album jackets, T-shirts, and even masks. An expansive mural in Oakland displays Grant’s image on a larger-than-life scale, framed with roses.

The ubiquitous pictures of Grant, the victim of a shooting by police, are a constant reminder that his life was taken suddenly when BART cop Johannes Mehserle shot him in the back on the Fruitvale train platform. At the time, Grant was unarmed and physically restrained, having been arrested following reports of a fight.

Cell phone camera footage of the shooting went viral, and the case drew national attention. The defense argued that it was all a tragic accident, saying Mehserle had mistakenly drawn his firearm when he meant to draw his Taser.

Mehserle was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and his sentencing is expected Nov. 5. With all the attention surrounding the case, this final determination has taken on the proportions of a moment of truth.

Mehserle could be sent to prison for as long as 14 years, or merely be placed on probation. For many Grant supporters, it’s a question of whether the justice system will incarcerate a police officer for killing a young person of color, after so many other youths have been slain in police shootings that never went to trial. For Mehserle’s supporters, the outcome will signify something else entirely.

 

RIVAL NARRATIVES

Mehserle, a white Napa native in his late 20s who resigned from BART after the shooting, was tried on a murder charge. But a jury in Los Angeles (where the trial was moved because of the publicity here) found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter on July 8. Protesters, decrying the verdict as too lenient, converged in downtown Oakland for a street rally directly afterward that later gave way to bursts of rioting and looting.

The grassroots community leaders who urged supporters into the streets aren’t the only people now mobilizing around the sentencing. In the months following the verdict, the law enforcement community rallied in support of Mehserle, whose conviction for on-duty police conduct stood out as a rarity.

The former cop’s supporters have set up websites, hosted vigils, and arranged media interviews for Mehserle and his allies. A website called Justice4Johannes.com decries his conviction, denouncing the justice system as biased against police. “Do not let our officers fall victim to a spineless system,” the website urges, “who would rather protect criminals than protect our law enforcement officers who daily put their lives on the line for you!”

As the date of the sentencing approaches, each side has demonstrated that they are as active as ever. When the Giants played in AT&T Park in October, Mehserle’s father, Todd, made an appearance in McCovey Cove on a stately sailboat with “Free Johannes Mehserle” banners ruffling on its tall masts. But a smaller wooden ketch with activist Jared Aldrich at the helm, hoisted banners that read “Justice for Oscar Grant” and, on another occasion, “Jail Killer Cops.”

On Oct. 23, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 10 shut down Bay Area ports, using a stop-work day to hold a rally at the Port of Oakland calling for the maximum sentence for Mehserle.

“The litany of police killings of innocent young black and Latino men has evoked a public outcry in California,” Jack Heyman, a co-organizer of the rally, wrote in an article in CounterPunch. “Yet when it comes to killer cops, especially around election time, with both the Democratic and Republican parties espousing law and order, the mainstream media either expunges or whitewashes the issue.”

Heyman told the Guardian that he had visited Oakland high school classes to speak about the issue and found that in some classes, every single student raised a hand when asked if they knew the name Oscar Grant. “They happen to be sensitive to the issue of police brutality,” he noted. “A number of them had had problems with police.”

 

PRISON OR PROBATION?

On Oct. 26, opposing briefs on the sentencing were filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Defense Attorney Michael Rains submitted a 126-page memo urging the judge to drop the gun-enhancement charge and place Mehserle on probation, which would keep him out of prison. Meanwhile, prosecutors with the Alameda County District Attorney filed a 20-page memo indicating that Mehserle should be sent to prison, but stopped short of advocating for the maximum sentence.

Rains’ motion goes into great detail, quoting from letters sent to the court in Mehserle’s defense, in which the former transit officer is said to be “a gentle giant.” It even goes so far as to suggest that Mehserle’s infant son (born New Year’s Day, 2009) could suffer psychological difficulties later in life if he is separated from his father.

Grant, too, was a father — his daughter, Tatiana, is six — but the prosecution’s motion doesn’t mention how she may be psychologically affected later in life by her loss. Grant supporters sent some 2,000 letters to the judge, according to a posting on civil rights attorney John Burris’ website, but none were referenced in the briefing.

The DA argues that Mehserle intentionally shot Grant, implying that the Taser argument was a fabrication. In the moments following the shooting, the document notes, Mehserle told his fellow officer that he thought Grant was going for a gun. “If the sentence in this case is to serve any purpose whatsoever,” it notes, “it must serve as punishment.”

 

INSIDE THE POLICE LOBBY

The Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) covered the cost of Mehserle’s defense. The 85,000-member, politically powerful police organization maintains a legal defense fund for officers facing legal troubles.

Technically, Mehserle wasn’t entitled to the financial assistance. According to PORAC’s website, an officer who voluntarily resigns may be ineligible for benefits, and Mehserle quit shortly after the shooting. Still, PORAC stepped up and put itself on the hook for millions in legal fees to ensure he had the best possible defense. PORAC was a driver behind the Peace Officers’ Bill of Rights, which established a unique set of protections for law enforcement officers under investigation for misconduct.

PORAC president Ron Cottingham acknowledged that its decision to fund Mehserle’s defense was discretionary, but declined to say more. It’s possible that PORAC was interested in preventing Mehserle’s trial from setting a precedent for other cases involving officers who use deadly force against unarmed suspects.

PORAC also played a role in the BART civilian oversight structure that was ultimately approved by the California Legislature. The transit agency’s lack of civilian oversight became a flashpoint in the wake of the shooting, prompting Assemblymember Tom Ammiano to draft legislation that would have created an Office of Citizen Complaints (OCC) for BART patterned after the system in place in San Francisco. PORAC fought it and the effort was stymied.

“PORAC … will actively oppose your bill as it is written,” Jesse Sekhon, president of the BART Police Officers’ Association, wrote in a letter to Ammiano’s office. “They also said that they will have every law enforcement agency in the state oppose the bill.” Ammiano’s bill would have prevented police officers from serving in oversight roles and would have granted more power to the OCC.

The bill that went forward instead, Assembly Bill 1586, was crafted by BART, supported by PORAC, and introduced by Assemblymember Sandre Swanson (D-Oakland). Under this system, the oversight process begins with a police auditor selected by the BART Board of Directors, and a citizen board — which may include police officers.

According to Lynette Sweet, a member of the BART Board who spoke about the bill during a community meeting in Oakland in August 2009, PORAC opposed Ammiano’s bill because it would have allowed the state to direct municipalities throughout California to create civilian-oversight offices. “PORAC doesn’t want to see that happen. So we’ve now become the lesser of two evils for them,” she said.

On Oct. 29, BART held a dedication ceremony for the new police auditor office and honored Swanson for bringing the legislation forward. The transit agency has initiated a search to fill the civilian-oversight positions. But the rifts in the community over this shooting are far from healed.

On one side, a politically powerful and financially robust police lobby is actively influencing civilian-oversight legislation and spending top dollar trying to keep Mehserle out of prison. On the other, a grassroots community movement furious about police brutality against black and Latino youth is gaining momentum.

Only Judge Robert Perry knows what his own personal interpretation of justice is, and he alone will determine if or for how long Mehserle will spend time behind bars. If he is spared from prison, the community will be outraged. If he is incarcerated, Mehserle supporters will be outraged. But regardless of the decision, Mehserle’s life will go on.

1...232425...35Page 24 of 35

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