Tim Redmond

Gentrification’s simple math

Zelda Bronstein
-
66
Gentrification’s simple math

Chuck Nevius is big into gentrification these days. He thinks it’s a dandy thing and “no longer a dirty word,” says the even longtime residents of the Mission love it, and has a nice photo of a person walking in Dogpatch, where two really cool dive bars just shut down — thanks to the gentrication that’s such a great thing.

Nevius quotes Randy Shaw, who has a bizarre statement:

In the ’70s and ’80s there was massive displacement of residents in the Haight, Noe Valley and the Castro,” says Randy Shaw, executive director of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic. “But now you are seeing a massive influx of upper-income people into previously unoccupied areas.”

What? “Previously unoccupied?” Like the Mission and Soma and Dogpatch? Unoccupied by the wealthy, maybe, but there are people living in almost every square inch of San Francisco, and in some parts of town, they are low-income people, and richer people force them out. That’s happening on the same scale today that it did in the 1980s, except worse: In the 80s, if you werer priced out of the Haight or Noe Valley or the Castro you could move to the Western Addition or the Mission or Soma. Now prices are so high everywhere in town that your only move is out of San Francisco altogether.

And while ol’ Chuck does admit there are downsides, he seems to think that somehow you can move wealthier people and more upscale establishments into existing lower-income areas without anything bad happening, as long as you respect “the delicate balancing act.”

But it isn’t a balancing act at all — it’s a zero-sum game. There’s finite space in this city, and when when something or someone comes in, something or someone has to leave. (Yes, you could build a lot more housing, but nobody’s building housing for working-class people.) But you can’t build more storefronts on Valencia or Mission; force out the existing community serving businesses and they have noplace else to go.

San Francisco has failed spectacularly at the fundamental challenge facing a city under this kind of pressure. First, before you allow more development, more upscaling, more of what C.W. Nevius loves, you have to protect existing vulnerable populations. That’s not a balancing act; that’s a mandate. If you don’t do it, you lose the character of the city and San Francisco becomes another sterile, corporate community.

Jesus. Why is this so hard to understand? I’ve lived through it several times, these booms that people like Mayor Lee and Nevius always celebrate, and every time, the pattern has been the same, the city has been damaged, and community institutions have been lost. I’m not one of those preservationists opposed to all change, but again: First protect existing vulnerable populations.

 

 

Does Ed Lee think moms can’t be supes?

Zelda Bronstein
-
40
Does Ed Lee think moms can’t be supes?

As I expected, Mayor Lee appointed a new supervisor before the Democratic County Central Committee had a chance to weigh in on a resolution suggesting he appoint a mother. The resolution is moot now; Lee named Katy Tang, an aide to outgoing Sup. Carmen Chu, and my most accounts Tang is a smart young woman with plenty of experience in the district who will likely carry on the more conservative politics of her former boss. She will have to face the voters in November, but in a district where more than half the voters are Asian — and where Chu was popular, and Tang has been out and about on the streets for years — she’s going to be in a strong position to win.

So that should be over, and Rosenthal’s suggestion consigned to the Oh Well, That Was A Nice Idea file, and it would be … except that the mayor made a kinda stupid comment on KTVU. When asked about Rosenthal’s suggestion, he said there were lots of qualifications for office, one of them being “somone who’s going to be spending a lot of their personal time on the weekends.”

Now: I’m sure the mayor didn’t really mean to say that a woman with kids can’t hold a demanding public office, or that women with kids can’t spend time working on the weekends. “I know a dozen female law partners who would scoff at the idea that mothers don’t work at night and on weekends,” Rosenthal told me.

Sup. John Avalos has kids, and does a fine job on the board. Former Sup. Sean Elsbernd had a young family, and nobody ever said he didn’t devote enough time to the district. Sup. Eric Mar has a daughter, and just won a tough re-election race.

It’s absolutely true that none of the four women on the board right now has kids. I think that was sort of Rosenthal’s point. I don’t know; it’s 2013, and maybe I’m reading too much into this, but did the mayor of San Francisco just imply that women with kids don’t have the time to handle the responsibilities of elective office? I hope not.

No traffic for the rich

Zelda Bronstein
-
147
No traffic for the rich

The more libertarian elements of the Bay Area have been complaining for years about carpool lanes on the freeways. If everyone’s stuck in traffic, and those lanes are open, why can’t everyone use them — and cut back on congestion?

Now, heeding those complaints (and moving in the fast lane toward privatization of the highway system), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission is moving to allow single-occupant vehicles to use the carpool lanes — for a price.

So the people who can afford to spent ten bucks extra a day can save time, too — and everyone else has to sit in traffic. A couple of problems with this scenario.

For one thing, the idea that moving more cars to the carpool lane will ease congestion on the rest of the road has no basis in fact or reality. Freeways are like jails — the more you build, the faster they fill up. Double the size of I-80 and soon it will still be as crowded. Build another Bay Bridge and it will be choked with cars in a year. That’s been the entire experience of American highway construction since World War II.

An open freeway encourages people to drive. When the price of waiting in traffic gets high enough, people either use transit or … carpool.

Which is the point of the carpool lanes. If a couple of people leave their cars at home, freeing up space for everyone else and in the process cutting down on fossil-fuel emissions, then they get to ride in a less-crowded lane. The carpool lanes are supposed to be more empty; that’s the idea.

Then there’s this notion of first-class and second-class highway travel.

In a perfect world, people whose time is worth more money would sacrifice cash to get where they’re going, and by sitting in traffic for half an hour less would earn tha extra money back at work, and all would even out. But even the most academic-minded economists know that’s not how the real world works. (Of course, in a perfect world we’d have such fast, cheap and effective transit systems that nobody would drive around the Bay Area at all.)

No: What will really happen is that wealthier people who want to go shopping or out to dinner or whatever and drive without sitting in traffic will get to do that, and poorer people will lose even more of their time to the commute, which they can’t afford to do anyway, and the level of economic inequality in the Bay Area will get worse. So will the air quality.

Brilliant idea.

A fine use for Larry’s fine art

Zelda Bronstein
-
23
A fine use for Larry’s fine art

A loyal reader contacted us with a great suggestion to solve all the fundraising problems of the America’s Cup.

This summer, it turns out, will be about more than racing for the city’s mega-billionaire yacht-race king. The Asian Art Museum’s latest program guide notes that from June 28-Sept. 22, the museum will host “In the Moment: Japanese Art from the Larry Ellison Collection.”

The museum will present “works from the rarely seen collection of Larry Ellison, owner of cup defender Team Oracle USA. The exhibition introduces about 80 artworks spanning 1,300 years. Included are works of the Momoyama (1573-1615) and Edo (1615-1868) periods.” According to the Metropolitican Museum of Art, “this period was characterized by a robust, opulent, and dynamic style, with gold lavishly applied to architecture, furnishings, paintings, and garments.”

Oh, and it’s worth noting that the Momoyama and Edo periods were also marked by the dominance of brutal warlords who claimed much of the nation’s wealth while most subjects lived in dire poverty.

At any rate, I’m sure the stuff is nice. Beautiful, even. And pricey. Bet a philanthropist of Ellison’s stature could auction off just a couple of those 80 pieces and raise enough to pay off the entire AC budget deficit. Eh, Larry?

 

Everybody likes Jerry; now what?

Zelda Bronstein
-
12
Everybody likes Jerry; now what?

For the first time in many years, Californians seem to like their governor. Jerry Brown’s approval rating is now above 50 percent; actually, it’s closer to 60 percent. And the Legislature is more popular, too. (Although ratings of the state Leg, like ratings of Congress, are pretty bogus — I may think the Legislature as a whole is doing a crappy job, because there are too many conservatives, but I think my own Assemblymember, Tom Ammiano, and my own state Senator, Mark Leno, are excellent. Republicans feel the opposite way. Nobody likes the body as a whole, because the body as a whole will never be liberal enough for me or conservative enough for Orange County.)

So here’s the question:

In politics, one of the things you do is build capital. You build it with your reputation, by doing things well (or at least things that make some group of constituents happy). You can’t keep it in the bank forever, or it gets stale and eventually starts to fade away; at some point, you have to use it.

The typical younger politician builds capital for future races — you get high marks as a city council member or county supervisor and you cash in some of that to get elected to the state Leg, then maybe to statewide office or Congress. But our guv isn’t typical in any way, and he’s not young; he might have one more term in office, which at this point he would win easily if he seeks it. But that’s almost certainly the end of the line. For better or for worse, I just don’t see a President Jerry Brown in our future.

So what’s he going to do with his political capital? What are the Democrats in the state Leg, who finally have the confidence of the voters, going to do?

If Jer thinks he’s going to build a couple of giant tunnels under the Delta to move more water south, he’s even battier that we think; that’s never going to happen. The entire environmental world is against it, it’s way too expensive, it will wind up getting delayed by lawsuits until long after Brown is out of office, and there’s no guarantee a future governor will keep Jerry’s Big Dig alive.

He’s got high-speed rail, a much better use of money that has widespread support, but that’s also a long-term project.

So what about reforming Prop. 13? He knows it’s a policy disaster. It’s not going to be repealed, but with the governor’s support, a split-role measure or some other credible reforms could transform local government and do more for the public schools than any pointed-headed “education reform” plan will ever do.

Or single-payer health care. Everyone knows that California’s getting screwed by the insurance industry. We have to write new rules for implementing Obamacare anyway. Twice, the state Leg has passed single-payer bills that were vetoed by the governor (not this governor).

It’s actually possible to lead the way to some changes that people will remember for decades. Jerry: You won’t get this chance again.

 

 

 

 

Cell phone petition gets 100K signatures

Zelda Bronstein
-
2
Cell phone petition gets 100K signatures

A San Francisco entrepreneur’s petition to allow consumers to unlock their cell phones has gathered more than 100,000 signatures, and now the White House will have to offer an official response.

Sina Khanifar, who runs opensignal, has been pushing to overturn a recent ruling allowing cell phone companies to prevent people who want to switch carriers from changing the firmware that controls the device.

The campaign to convince the Obama administration and Congress to overturn the ridiculous ruling continues here.

Look for a quick decision on D4 appointment

Zelda Bronstein
-
44
Look for a quick decision on D4 appointment

A Democratic Party resolution calling on Ed Lee to appoint a mother to the Board of Supervisors may have driven the slow-moving mayor to fill the seat of departing Sup. Carmen Chu quickly, perhaps as soon as today (Feb. 21), City Hall sources are saying.

Lee appointed Chu to fill the post of Assessor-Recorder vacated when Phil Ting moved to the state Assembly. But he’s been dragging his feet on naming Chu’s replacement.

Alix Rosenthal, a member of the Democratic County Central Committee, has put a resolution on the agenda for the group’s Feb. 27 meeting urging the mayor to name a woman with a family. Her argument:

Political office is often beyond the reach of mothers, because balancing a political life with family and work is often an insurmountable challenge.  Appointing a mother to fill the District 4 seat will demonstrate the Mayor’s commitment to stemming the tide of families leaving San Francisco, and it may serve to inspire women with children to be politically engaged, and to run for office themselves in the future.

That, of course, could put the mayor’s allies on the DCCC in a tough situation. Will they vote to urge the mayor to do something he doesn’t want to — or will they vote against, you know, motherhood?

Of course, if the mayor makes an appointment before Feb. 27, the resolution becomes moot.

Rosenthal and some other politically active women are supporting Suzy Loftus, a member of the Police Commission and a mom. But D4 is more than half Asian, and has always had an Asian supervisor, so it’s unlikely the mayor would appoint a non-Asian to the job.

One obvious candidate: Katy Tang, who is now Chu’s legislative aide.

The mayor will want someone he can count on as loyal — and who he’s pretty sure can win an election. His last two appointees to elective office, Christina Olague and Rodrigo Santos, were both defeated the first time they faced the voters.

But at this point, Lee isn’t saying anything. Look for an announcement soon.

 

 

 

Free the cell phones! Sign the petition

Zelda Bronstein
-
2
Free the cell phones! Sign the petition

A San Francisco entrepreneur is trying to get the Obama administration to overturn a stupid anticonsumer law that protects cell phone makers and phone companies.

Sina Khanifar, co-founder of opensignal, has collected more than 80,000 signatures on a White House petition calling for a restoration of the right to “unlock” a cell phone — that is, to alter its programming so it can be used on a different carrier’s network.

It is, Khanifar told me, a fairly simple issue: If I buy a cell phone, it ought to be mine to use as I wish — and if that includes taking it apart, rewiring it, or changing the programming, that’s my business.

As he notes:

Intuitively we understand that once we’ve purchased a product it’s up to us how we use or modify it. Replacing the hard drive on a Macbook may invalidate our warranty, but it isn’t, and shouldn’t be, illegal.

But under a recent ruling by the Library of Congress, which oversees parts of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, cell phone companies have the right to demand exclusive use of the devices.

That means when you buy a phone from, say, Sprint, it comes with a code that ensures it will work only on Sprint’s network. You can’t take that same phone and move your account to, say, Verizon or AT&T; you’d have to buy a new phone.

Khanifar has made something of a business out of resetting phones to work on other networks, which is particularly useful for people who are moving or travelling out of the country, where it often costs a fortune to use a US cell phone. Several years ago, Motorola tried to sue him — but with the help of a pro bono lawyer, he was able to beat the giant company back.

But the new rules mean someone who tries to change the code on a device he or she legally owns can be subject to as much as five years in prison and a $500,000 fine.

Cell phone companies say the law is needed to protect their interests; after all, that smart phone you bought for $99 when you signed a contract with your carrier actually retails for about $700. You get the discount by signing a contract to use the company’s network for a period of time, typically two years.

But Khanifar says — correctly — that those contracts already include hefty cancellation fees that more than cover the investment the company made in giving you a discounted phone.

In other words, he says, this is a corporate giveaway that undermines consumer rights. Ultimately, it will take an act of Congress to change the rules, and so far, only one member, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) has shown any interest. “But right now, we’re just trying to get this on the administration’s radar,” Khanifar said.

He needs 100,000 signatures to get an official White House response, and the deadline is Feb. 23. Sign up.

 

Supes scramble to find TIC deal

Zelda Bronstein
-
158
Supes scramble to find TIC deal

Some San Francisco supervisors are scrambling to find an acceptable compromise that would prevent condo-conversion legislation by Sups. Scott Wiener and Mark Farrell from becoming a bitter battle that could be a no-win situation for centrists.

Board President David Chiu is meeting with tenant groups and trying to craft an alternative to the proposal, which would allow some 2,000 tenancy in common units to convert to condominiums. Wiener says the legislation is needed to provide housing stability to people in the almost-but-not-quite-a-condo world of TICs. Tenant activists who have met with Chiu say he’s discussing ways to limit speculation, which might include a five-year ban on the resale of converted condos. But that won’t be anywhere near enough for the tenant groups.

In fact, tenant and landlord groups are both talking to Sup. Norman Yee, who will be one of the swing votes, and who could introduce a series of amendments to the Wiener/Farrell bill that would be more palatable to tenants.

“They’ve had a couple of meetings,” Yee told me. “We’re just examining the issues to see if there’s a compromise. It would be great if we could work something out so the supervisors could feel better about voting on this.”

But any deal, Ted Gullicksen of the San Francisco Tenants Union told me, would require “structural reform of the future condo-conversion process.”

Yee could probably get away with that — he’s never relied on landlords or real-estate interests for his campaign money, and there aren’t that many TIC owners in his district, which is largely single-family homes. This won’t be a vote that will make or break his future in District 7.

On the other hand, it could be a huge issue for Sup. London Breed, who represents a district with a huge majority of tenants and the most progressive voting record in the city. Breed insists that she hasn’t made up her mind on the issue, and she told me she agrees she’s on the hot seat here: Much of her political and financial support came from Plan C and real-estate interests that want more condo conversions, but she would face furious policial fallout if she voted against tenants. “I am open to a compromise, but only if it’s good policy for the city,” she said.

Supervisors David Campos and John Avalos are strongly against the TIC bill, and it’s likely that Sups. Eric Mar (who got immense support from tenants in his recent re-election) and Jane Kim (who didn’t support the measure in committee) will oppose it unless it’s altered in a way that tenants can accept.

Naturally, Farrell and Wiener are on the yes side, as is, almost certainly, Sup. Carmen Chu.

That leaves Breed, Chiu, Yee, and Sup. Malia Cohen — and three of them have to vote Aye for the bill to pass. Chiu wants to run for state Assembly from the tenant-heavy side of the city, but, as always, he’s looking for a way to avoid an ugly fight.

The problem is that the tenants aren’t going to sign off on anything modest; if they’re going to accept the conversion of 2,000 units that used to be rental housing, they’re going to want to be absolutely certain it doesn’t happen again — and that there are new rules in place that halt the rampant assault on existing rent-controlled housing.

So either the folks in the center — Yee, Breed, Chiu, and Cohen — are going to have to force the landlords to accept some long-term reforms that they won’t like, or politicans like Breed are going to be forced to take a yes or not vote that could come back to haunt them.

 

 

 

 

Should city employees be commissioners?

Zelda Bronstein
-
6
Should city employees be commissioners?

Mayor Ed Lee had to do something radical with the Housing Authority, and I’m glad he did. The commissioners who oversee this mess, particularly the chair, Rev. Amos Brown, were nothing but syncophants for Director Henry Alvarez, who clearly has to go. Firing all but one of the commissioners was the right way to go.

(Although technically, the mayor must have gotten them all to resign. The City Charter says a Housing Authority Commission member can only be removed “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct in office, after serving written charges and providing an opportunity for a hearing.”)

That said, his replacement commissioners raise an interesting question. Every one of them is a city employee. Four of the five are either department heads or senior staffers, all of whom work for the mayor or one of his appointees. The other is a deputy district attorney.

Commissions are set up to provide a degree of indepedent oversight over city agencies; there’s a reason the mayor doesn’t directly hire and fire the police chief, the fire chief, the planning director, etc.; there are commissions to give members of the public some role in monitoring those departments. Obviously, the mayor appoints most of the commissioners, and most mayors expect a degree of loyalty, but there’s a least  a chance that appointees will speak up when the mayor is doing the wrong thing. (Planning Commissioner Dennis Antennore used to defy Mayor Willie Brown routinely; he ultimately got fired for it, but at least the public got a chance to hear another point of view.)

Now we have people whose day job — and income — depends directly on the mayor’s will (these are not civil servants; they’re all high-level workers who can be fired any time) running a commission. The idea that any of them will ever cross the mayor is now out of the question.

Oh — and do you think there might ever be a time when the District Attorney’s Office has to investigate the Housing Authority for criminal conduct? Maybe? Could that ever happen? And how would Deputy D.A. and Commissioner Eric Fleming handle that?

It’s perfectly legal for city employees to be commissioners, according to a detailed 2010 memo from the City Attorney’s Office. Former Sup. Aaron Peskin tried before he left the board to change that, but he fell short (in part because labor didn’t like the idea; why should city workers be deprived of the ability to participate in the public process?) But we’re not talking about rank-and-file workers who have union protections and can speak their minds and engage in political action freely; we’re talking about direct appointees of the mayor and the city administrator who have no choice but to do the bidding of their bosses.

This just doesn’t seem like a good idea.

 

 

 

It’s about housing, not taxes

Zelda Bronstein
-
48
It’s about housing, not taxes

Texas Guv Rick Perry made a spectacle of himself trying to take businesses away from California, but as everyone with any sense predicted, his trip was a bust. Fact is, very few businessess anywhere make major relocation decisions because of taxes and regulations. But as Calitics points out (with a nice chart), the real reason people have left California of late is the cost of housing.

The so-called “job creators” have enough money to afford to live here, so they aren’t going anywhere. What’s happening is that the rest of the workforce, particularly the middle-class workforce, is finding the gap between the amount they can earn and the amount they have to pay for a home is getting so radical that they’re leaving altogether.

That’s happening in San Francisco, as evictions are driving people out of the city. Some may move to other parts of the Bay Area, creating what most environmentalists and economists agree is an unsustainable situation: Workers living so far from their jobs that vast amounts of energy have to be expended getting them back and forth. But the data shows that people are leaving California altogether. Calitics:

If we are to really continue our growth, we must address the housing crunch that is going on, especially along the coast. That isn’t accomplished through slashing services and budgets, but rather working to create new affordable housing solutions and ways for young families to stay here in California, where most would rather stay.

And let’s remember: One of the biggest factors that does drive business location decisions is the availability of skilled labor. If people are leaving the state because they can’t afford to live here, who’s going to work in the industries that are the biggest employers in San Francisco (hint: It’s not tech)? Tourism is this city’s greatest economic engine, and jobs in the hospitality industry don’t pay enough for housing in the city that depends on it.

That’s a dilemma we all ought to be talking about — and Rick Perry trying to get businesses to go to Texas is not.

 

The end of Joe the Rat

Zelda Bronstein
-
10
The end of Joe the Rat

I grew up in the Catholic Church, went to Transfiguration Carmelite School, got beaten with a ruler by the nuns, had a priest try to teach us sex ed, and was so turned off by it all that by high school I was a committed atheist. But I have always maintained a fascination with the Church, the Pope, the Roman Curia and the whole deeply secretive Vatican operation, which makes for some of the most amazing conspiracy theories in the world.

And now there’s a new one — why did Pope Benedict, Cardinal Ratzinger, the guy known by Catholics facing his Inquisitional wrath a Joe the Rat — do the unthinkable and quit?

Did you know that lightening hit the Vatican just hours after he made his announcement? Does that mean the God (s) on high are/were happy — or angry?

Is he fleeing a new child-abuse scandal? Is there something else we don’t know? Does it have something to do with the Prophecy of Bishop Malachy in 1140? Was it the Knights Templar?

Or is the guy really just too old and tired to live up to the fact that he’s been a failure as a leader of a church that is in serious decine in all but the developing world, where its current growth won’t last?

The Catholic Church is has for much of the past several hundred years been a creature of the Western, developed world — where even Catholics don’t take its teachings very seriously any more. Nobody in Europe or North America wants to be a priest in a religion where celibacy is mandatory, women are second-class citizens, and the theology you’re supposed to teach is so horribly retrograde that 90 percent of the parishoners think it’s perfectly fine to ignore it. The median age of Catholic priests in this part of the world is about 65; that’s really not a sustainable situation.

When I was growing up, Catholic families looked at Pope John XXIII as a revered figure who brought the Church into the modern age; people talked about the Second Vatican Council the way they talked about politics, which, of course, it was, and there was a feeling that the members of the Church — the ones, after all, who pay for the whole thing — might have something of a say in how it was run.

But as the rest of the world moved forward, the Church moved back. The child-abuse scandal was just the outcropping; the Church was run by a clueless bunch of old white guys who became more insular and more conservative as the people who attend their church became more progressive and more interconnected. Now most of the Catholics I know think the Pope is a doddering old fool who has no idea what the world is like. Hell, he’s attacking the nuns because they aren’t homophobic enough.

The Catholic Church remains popular in parts of the developing world, but that’s not going to last. Either the leaders of this religion are going to realize that their ancient dogma has nothing to do with the actual teachings of Jesus and everything to do with money and power (would Jesus really object to gay marriage? Really?) and start to change — or the next Pope will, indeed, oversee the decline of his mission.

Maybe Joe the Rat didn’t want it to happen on his watch.

 

 

 

 

Editor’s notes

Andrew Lam
-
37

tredmond@sfbg.com

EDITORS NOTES This is how dysfunctional the San Francisco housing market has become:

The Chron reported in late January that young people who are just arriving in San Francisco are paying exorbitant rents for tiny spaces — $500 for a laundry room, $600 for an upper bunk — and often living in substandard conditions.

And on Feb. 11, The New York Times reported that a significant number of high-end condos in that city were vacant almost all the time, owned by the uber-rich who used them as pieds a terre — something that’s going on increasingly in San Francisco.

The Times notes:

“The higher up you go in price, the higher the concentration is likely to be of owners who spend only a few months, a few weeks or even just a few days each year in their apartments. This very costly form of desolation means that some of the city’s most expensive residential buildings stand mostly dark, lonesome and empty on the inside.”

I called Brad Paul, a former deputy mayor for housing and a longtime expert on development in San Francisco and read him that quote. “As my nine-year-old son would say, ‘You think?'” he said. My kids would be shorter: “Duh.”

The more housing you build that only multimillionaires can afford, the more likely your serving a population that has three or four other houses and just wants this one for the couple of weeks a year that they jet into San Francisco.

Planning Commission member Katherine Moore has mused about the problem in public, noting that in her Nob Hill neighborhood, there are more and more dark apartments.

Who cares? Everyone should — for a couple of reasons. For one, empty neighborhoods are no good for small businesses. They’re also not as safe. And it just seems so ass-backward: A city that can’t provide decent affordable housing for current residents, much less for the next generation of immigrants who keep the place lively, is giving up valuable land to build housing for people who aren’t going to live here at all.

That’s what the fight over the new condo projects on the waterfront, 8 Washington and 75 Howard, ought to be about.

At the very least, the city ought to get some data here. It’s not that hard — just check property records against the tax documents filed for homeownership exemptions. As Sup. David Chiu told me, “It would be good for us to know if San Francisco’s high-end condos are actually being used.”

Maybe we should find that out before we build any more. You think?

 

For $999, you can watch sailing, on public land

Zelda Bronstein
-
14
For $999, you can watch sailing, on public land

Here’s the deal of a lifetime: For $999, you can get a ticket to watch the America’s Cup races. From beachers built on public land. Where the non-wealthy public won’t be allowed.

The America’s Cup Event Authority, run by Larry Ellison, who is the third-richest person in the world, has sent out an email soliciting buyers for this special early deal: Buy now, and you will be guaranteed a “reserved section in a preferred area of the bleachers,” as well as exclusive access to parties and events, and a chance to get your picture taken with the Cup.

Which, by the way, is having trouble raising money — and could leave the city on the hook for as much as $20 million. Which loudmouth critics like Aaron Peskin and Chris Daly warned about from the start. So we’ve gone from the races being a huge economic boon, worth billions to the city, to poor Mark Buell, who has to ask people to give money to underwrite Larry Ellison’s yacht party, saying that even if the city loses money, it will still all be worth it.

Those poor San Francisco plebians who don’t have $1,000 will be able to see the races, but Ellison’s team recommends spending the cash, now: “There will be a section of free-view bleachers,” the Event Authority’s Ryan Carroll told me. “But those seats will be limited, and we expect them to fill up quickly.”

And there may still be some cheaper seats coming; tickets for individual races will go on sale later, and seats at the prelims in June might not cost as much, Carroll said.

Other areas for public waterfront viewing “will be congested,” he said.

Jane Sullivan, marketing director for the America’s Cup Organizing Committee (which is the city’s operation, separate and distinct from Ellison’s), said it’s not neccessary to give Ellison a thousand bucks to see the sailboats whip by at 50 miles an hour: “The entire waterfront will not be filled up and congested,” she said. “There will be ample and lovely free viewing of all the races.”

So let me sum this up: The taxpayers spend $20 million underwriting Ellison’s race. Then Ellison’s team wants us to pay him $999 for the right to sit on a bench on public land and watch. Who does this gentleman think he is? (Oh right: He’s Larry Fucking Ellison.)

 

Historic campaign for trans benefits kicks off

Zelda Bronstein
-
95
Historic campaign for trans benefits kicks off

A group of LGBT labor activists is launching a nationwide campaign to push unions to bargain for transgender health benefits for their members.

Pride At Work, in collaboration with the Transgender Law Center, the National Center for Transgender Equality, and the SEIU Lavender Caucus, plans to ask labor groups, including local labor councils and state labor federations, to pledge to include trans benefits in future contract negotiations.

The effort is historic — and badly needed: Gabriel Haaland, co-chair of Pride At Work’s Transgender Caucus, estimated that fewer than 10 percent of all union contracts mandate health insurance benefits for transgender people.

The organizing effort will kick off in March with actions and educational programs in at least 10 cities.

Some unions already recognize the importance of the issue — SEIU, for example, endorsed the idea of including trans benefits at a recent national convention. And transgender employees of the 2.1 million-member union are covered.

But “we’re asking, how does that get implement at the local level, as a bargaining priority,” Haaland said.

A growing number of private-sector employers, including Google, Office Depot and Kaiser, cover a broad spectrum of care, including gender-reassignment surgery.

San Francisco made national headlines in 2001 when the city agreed to cover the health costs of transgender employees, and the right-wing nuts of the world went crazy. Headlines announced that the city’s taxpayers would soon be underwriting “sex-change operations.”

As a result, however, local health-care providers that contract with the city began to train their staff on trans sensitivity and began to develop protocols for treating trans patients.

In reality, most trans benefits are fairly inexpensive — hormone treatments, for example, are not terribly costly. And the very concept of organizing around trans issues and pushing benefits in union contracts can help bring a historically underserved and marginalized community into the political discussion.

“It’s just as it was in the past with gay and lesbian issues,” Haaland said. “A lot of people don’t even realize that they know trans people. And when trans workers realize that this is happening, it gets them more involved in their unions.”

Even in San Francisco, trans people face huge obstacles at work. A 2006 study by the Transgender Law Center and the Bay Guardian found that three out of four trans people in the city lack a full-time job — and more than 90 percent earn less than the area’s median income.

The organizing effort came out of a January, 2013 National Gay and Lesbian Task Force “Creating Change” conference in Atlanta, where Pride at Work members brought in transgender leaders from around the country for discussions on political issues and strategies. The issue of benefits was at the top of the list.

“Not just the issue but the process itself was historic,” Haaland said. “We went out and asked community leaders what they wanted, and this is where we ended up.”

 

No sympathy for TICs

Zelda Bronstein
-
153
No sympathy for TICs

Got a fascinating letter from a local lawyer named Richard Hurlburt, who has some thoughts on the TIC-condo conversion legislation sponsored by Sups. Scott Wiener and Mark Farrell. He writes:

I’m a tenant’s rights lawyer and real estate broker. Whenever possible I help tenants facing eviction buy their TIC units. I also own and reside in a TIC unit. My building has twelve units and would not be affected by the proposed law.

I just read the actual text of the legislation sponsored by Sups. Farrell & Wiener and I’m against it.

TIC financing isn’t that difficult anymore. Fractional loans are the norm and not that much more expensive than condominium loans. It does cost a little more to finance a TIC, but the units cost less to begin with. So I don’t really see a hardship on the part of TIC owners who generally have smaller mortgages because they paid less for their units to start with.

The supposed $20,000 per unit condo conversion impact fee to benefit low-income housing is largely illusory. The proposed law contains a reduction for each year the building has participated in the lottery, so a building that participated in the lottery for five years, which is the majority, would get an 80% reduction and pay only $4,000.

Although the law would provide lifetime leases for the few tenants occupying converted units, this benefit is seriously disproportionate. For the tenants getting lifetime leases, good for them but that is a huge windfall for a very few lucky individuals. For tenants generally the legislation is actually quite bad. Once any of the affected units becomes vacant, all future tenants would be exempt from the rent increase protections of the Rent Ordinance. And allowing certain owners to bypass the condo lottery will only encourage more Ellis-TIC conversions.

 

Finally, a way to get toxics out of furniture

Zelda Bronstein
-
1
Finally, a way to get toxics out of furniture

Gov. Jerry Brown has finally done what the state Legislature refused for six years to do: He’s eliminating the requirement that household furniture and children’s cribs, car seats, and strollers be treated with toxic flame-retardant chemicals.

State Sen. Mark Leno has been working on this since 2006, and has introduced four different bills that were aimed at the chemicals that are known to cause serious health problems and are prevalent in coaches, chairs and other furniture. At one point, he simply sought to protect kids; he later gave up on banning the chemicals and sought simply to allow manufacturers to use other, less toxic forms of fire retardants. But the chemical industry launched a high-powered lobbying effort to protect the mandates, and all of his bills were defeated.

The standards that California uses were written 40 years ago, when state officials were worried about the danger of furniture fires, primarily started by smokers leaving lit cigarettes on a coach or chair. They’ve become a de facto national standard, since nobody wants to build furniture that can’t be sold in the nation’s biggest market.

But there’s now abundant evidence that the chlorinated and brominated chemicals used to treat polyurethane foam, which is prevalent in upholstery, are linked to cancer, reproductive problems and learning disabilities.

Alternatives to those chemicals are available — and, along with the emergence of self-extinguishing cigarettes and the widespread use of smoke detectors, the old rules have become obsolete.

Now Brown’s Department of Consumer Affairs has rewritten the regulations, allowing for a more effective standard that can be met without dangerous chemicals. The new regs are complicated (try reading this and making sense of it) but what they say, in essence, is that products designed for children no longer have to meet the old standards — and adult furnishing can meet a more modern standard that doesn’t require the use of chlorides and bromides.

“This is a landmark day,” Leno told us. “This will not only change the way California deals with fire safety; it will impact the rest of the country.”

Leno said that as soon as the new rules take effect, he will try to get the Legislature to adopt them as law, so a future governor can’t go backward.

The chemical industry tried to derail the governor’s effort, too — and enlisted the help of Leno’s colleague, state Sen. Leland Yee.

A Jan. 9th letter signed by 20 state Legislators urges Brown not to change the existing standards. Reading like a handout from the chemical industry, it refers to the “alleged chemical risks” and suggests that the governor instead have those chemicals further studied — a process that could delay any changes for some time.

That’s crazy: “Endless scientific studies (including a recently released report that makes a connection between exposure to flame retardants and reduced IQ and higher rates of autism) and every environmental advocacy group that these chemicals are known to be toxic and harmful to human health and development,” Leno said.

Yee is among the mostly conservative, pro-industry signatories.

We contacted Yee for comment more than a week ago, but he hasn’t called. His chief of staff, Adam Keigwin, told us the letter “it is consistent with his position that all chemicals should go through Green Chemistry Council to leave the conflicting science to the experts rather than politicians. In addition, it is consistent with the position of the all the major burn centers and doctors, including those in San Francisco, who believe this fire retardant is necessary to save lives.”

Actually, the science isn’t “conflicting” at all; it’s entirely consistent. And the state regulators have concluded that alternatives to toxic substances can provide even greater fire safety.

In fact, Andrew McGuire, one of the pre-eminent burn specialists in the country, told us Yee’s statement was off the mark. “I know that’s not what the doctors at San Francisco General think, and that’s where my office is,” he said. “The top burn doctors belong to the American Burn Association, and that group’s position is not in support of toxic flame retardants.”

 

 

 

Friends of London Breed

Zelda Bronstein
-
97
Friends of London Breed

Got an interesting email invite: A group of the most pro-downtown, pro-landlord, conservative folks in town is holding a fundraiser for Sup. London Breed, who represents the most progressive district in the city.

Oh, and none of the members of the Host Committee lives in or has any direct connections to District Five.

The Feb. 25 event is at the home of Wade and Lorna Randlett. Wade Randlett is a scorched-earth political operative who created a group called SFSOS with the late Republican GAP mogul Don Fisher. His wife was the spokesperson for disgraced former school superintendant Arlene Ackerman. Randlett tried to shoot down a school bond after Ackerman was fired. He was the secret force behind an effort to recall former Sup. Sophie Maxwell.

Also on the list: Ron Conway and Anne Moeller Caen, who is a terrible, pro-PG&E member of the SFPUC.

Oddly, powerhouse lawyer Joe Cochette is on the invite, as is 49ers tight end (and generally cool guy) Vernon Davis.

Oh, and Mayor Ed Lee, who, I’m told, can’t stand Wade Randlett. Which puts him in good company.

I called Sup. Breed and asked her about the event, and she told me she met Randlett working on the first Obama campaign, “and he volunteered to do this.” She said she needed the money for office essentials like extra computer screens and a couch, and she has to pay off her inaugural celebration.

As she normally does, Breed went out of her way to say that her votes are not for sale, and that she won’t do the bidding of the people who give her money. “If you want to hold a fundraiser for me, I’d be happy to take your money too,” she said. As for a host committee that might be offensive to the majoirty of her constituents, she said “it is what it is.”

In the end, of course, Breed will be — and should be — judged by her votes, not by her associates, and we’ll have an excellent indication of where she’s headed when Sup. Scott Wiener’s TIC legislation comes before the board. But in the meantime, the reason this is all relevant (other than the fun of watching Ed Lee and Wade Randlett try to get along) is that it indicates that some very bad actors think (rightly or wrongly) that Breed is their ally.

 

 

 

Are the new ride-shares unsafe?

Zelda Bronstein
-
14
Are the new ride-shares unsafe?

Interesting letter to sfist, which typically loves the new rideshare companies like Lyft and Sidecar. The writer, apparently a cab driver, makes clear why these unlicensed cabs are a problem:

Taxi drivers are professional drivers with hundreds of thousands of city miles under their belts, intensive knowledge of city streets and each vehicle is inspected twice a year by the government of San Francisco and the SFO Airport Authority. These inspections insure that the three GPS tracking units, full motion video cameras, radios and other safety equipment is functioning and that the car is in compliance with DOT rules and regulations.

Yes, some cabbies are assholes, and yes, some cabbies don’t know their way to certain places in the city, and of course some cabbies drive like crazed maniacs. Sadly though the more Lyft and Sidecar operate and undercut the legitimate transportation services the more often this will happen. How would you feel if you had spent countless dollars and hours getting to do your job for crappy pay and to be treated like shit, only to have someone come in that didn’t do what you had to to get your job and do essentially the same thing for less money… making it so you couldn’t feed your kids, or pay your rent

Lyft and Sidecar are very dangerous for the city and the traveling public by putting un-licensed, uninsured, untrained, amateur drivers on the streets.

 

TIme to call these what they are — taxis — and make them get permits like every other taxi in the city.

Pot hearing cancelled — but why?

Zelda Bronstein
-
1
Pot hearing cancelled — but why?

The state Senate Business, Professions, and Economic Development Committee was slated to hold a hearing Feb. 11 on Assemblymember Tom Ammiano’s efforts to create a regulatory framework for medical marijuana. That’s a fairly common practice when a new set of professional regulations is proposed; it’s called a “sunrise” hearing, and the idea is to get all the players in the room and see what kinds of concerns they have. A bill Ammiano introduced last year, AB 2312, would have put the authority to set state regs under the Department of Consumer Affairs; it died in the state Senate, but it will come back in some form or another.

So the committee chair, Sen. Curren D. Price, a Los Angeles Democrat, set the hearing, and committee staff went about rounding up witnesses — and then five days before the gavel dropped, the whole thing was called off.

What happened? Couple of things.

For starters, the office of Gov. Jerry Brown officially doesn’t like marijuana. And the DCA is part of the governor’s office. And the attorney general, Kamala Harris, has been awfully careful about getting into the medical marijuana fray. And the feds — or at least, the US attorney for Northern California — officially hates anything to do with the devil weed.

And all of those people should have been part of the regulatory discussion, except that somehow, they couldn’t quite make it to the hearing. “We had difficulty getting representatives of the administration and the attorney general to come,” Committee Consultant G. V. Ayers told me.

Then there’s the fact that Price is running for Los Angeles City Council (funny — in San Francisco, the supervisors want to be in the state Legislature. In LA, the state legislators want to be on the City Council. Possibly because there are no term limits, and there’s a huge city budget). And the election is in March. And anything Price (who has supported medical marijuana in the past) said or did that suggested he loves loco weed might get slung at him in the waning days of a long, expensive campaign.

So in 2013, everyone’s still afraid of pot. “What’s up with marijuana?” Ammiano asked me. “You can’t even have a hearing?”

Apparently not.

The Cal GOP thinks the ACLU is “communist.”

Zelda Bronstein
-
50
The Cal GOP thinks the ACLU is “communist.”

It’s not a surprise that the California Republican Party is, ahem, a bit out of step with the mainstream of the state (you see a lot of Repubs holding statewide office right now? I don’t.) And of course a San Francisco woman of color who isn’t a complete right-wing loon is going to have trouble running for a state party office. But what made the Chron’s story on Harmeet Dhillon so amazing was this:

“This is not a personal attack against Harmeet,” Celeste Greig, president of the California Republican Assembly, said Tuesday. “The ACLU is a communist organization. Do we want somebody who is a member of a communist organization that has sued religious organizations numerous times because they don’t like the cross and the Menorah” displayed on public property, Greig said, in explaining why she considers the ACLU – which has no official political affiliation – to be communist.

Gawd, we don’t get to see that kind of red-baiting much any more. I used to get called a commie all the time; back in the 1980s, there really were some communists around, too. You’d see the RCP at rallies and events, and the CPUSA was still marginally functional, and there were Trots and Maoists and it was all very interesting, sorting them all out.

But outside of Cuba, there really aren’t a lot of old-fashioned commies left. I miss them; nobody could give a four-hour stemwinder of a rhetorical speech like a commie leader. In the old days of the RCP, if you got accused of violating party discipline, you were sentenced to re-read “Combatting Liberalism,” which was kind of like having a Catholic priest sentence you to saying ten Hail Marys for masturbating.

There aren’t any communists at the ALCU; maybe once upon a time, but the left in America has moved way beyond that (oh, and the real commies never liked the ACLU — they were never big on freedom of speech or the press.) Now we’ve got ten brands of anarchists, and a wide range of socialist types, and Greens, and progressives, and a whole lot of others with various ranges of economic critiques and analyses and social platforms, many of which I heartily endorse. But the commies have largely faded away. You’d think the GOP folks would know their enemies a little better.

The happiest city — for some

Zelda Bronstein
-
169
The happiest city — for some

Not to go all gloomy on a day when it’s finally not cold and the sun is out and San Francisco was just named the happiest city in America, (based on things like the number of shopping centers and cultural events), but really: Let’s not all jump up and down and celebrate. This is a very happy city for people who have money; it’s becoming a very anxiety-filled city for everyone else.

I’ve gotten quite a few comments and emails from friends on our cover story this week, and most of them go something like this:

“Great story. Really scary. I hope they don’t Ellis Act my building or I won’t be able to stay here, either.”

If you’re a renter in San Francisco, and you’ve been here a while, and you’re under rent control, chances are you’re nervous about your future. Because if you get evicted, you’re almost certainly leaving town. Maybe you can find a place in Oakland that’s smaller than what you currently have at twice the price, or maybe you can’t. 

This is a city under immense pressure, and while the economically secure can happily go to shopping centers and see the Opera, I would say a majority of the current residents of San Francisco are more stressed about their future than they have been in years. And that doesn’t seem to be addressed in the happiness calculus.

An Ellis Act boycott list

Zelda Bronstein
-
34
An Ellis Act boycott list

Jeremy Mykaels, who is featured in our story this week on Ellis Act evictions, is fighting back with his reseach and web-developer skills: He’s put together a site, ellishurtsseniors.org, that details not only his story and the overall plight of tenants but lists every Ellis Act eviction involving seniors or disabled people, the address, the name and contact info. for the landlord — and a call for potential TIC buyers to avoid those properties.

I hope this gets circulately widely — and that people buying property consider the human costs of eviction.

1...567...116Page 6 of 116

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