Tim Redmond

Fiona Ma votes against prisoner releases

-
2

By Tim Redmond

Only a small handful of Democrats voted against the weak prison-reform bill that narrowly passed the state Assembly Aug. 31. Among those joining the entire GOP caucus: Fiona Ma of San Francisco.

Ma’s always been a bit more conservative than her San Francisco colleagues, but this one is over the top: The bill was already watered down to be so mild that it won’t even come close to making the cuts needed to balance the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation budget. Proposals calling for the early release of old and sick inmates (people very unlikely to re-offend) were stripped from the bill. Any reasonable approach to the prison crisis would include the early release of tens of thousands of inmates who are serving overly lengthy sentences for nonviolent crimes; all of these inmates will be released soon anyway, and the notion that allowing a drug offender to serve three and a half years instead of four will somehow impact public safety is nuts. But that wasn’t even on the table; the final bill was designed not to scare away moderate Democrats.

Nevertheless, Ma voted no.

I couldn’t reach her on the phone and she didn’t respond directly to my email, which is unusual. But I did get a statement from her press spokesperson, Nick Hardeman, which reads as follows:

“While reducing costs is important to fix our budget crisis, we have to be responsible when it comes to public safety. If effective services are not in place as inmates re-enter society these cost savings will be pointless. As we make these reforms, our top priority should be to decrease recidivism rates and give individuals the appropriate tools to become productive members of society. We should not play budget politics with public safety and I would prefer a substantive, open process when making reforms of this magnitude.”

Wait: “We should not play budget politics with public safety?” That sounds like a press release from the police lobbies.

BART’s even weaker legislation

-
0

By Wendi Jonassen and Tim Redmond

There’s a move in Sacramento to authorize BART to put its relatively weak police oversight process into action — but the legislation is even weaker than BART’s cautious plan.

The BART Board approved a plan this summer, but can’t enact it without the state. BART was created by the Legislature as a special district, and lacks the power to create a police-oversight agency.
Assembly member Sandre Swanson (D-East Bay), is trying to get legislation through — but there are a few major problems. For one thing, at the insistence of the police-lobbying group PORAC, the legislation at this point doesn’t allow the elected BART Board to overrule the police chief on discipline.

So the elected officials who run the agency will have no authority over rogue cops. That’s insane.

The other problem is that the legislative session is almost over – and the only way Swanson can pull this off is through a legislative maneuver. He tried to take existing bills that have been through both Assembly and Senate committees and “gut and strip” – that is, replace all the existing language with new language. But he couldn’t pull that off.

Now he has to ask for waivers and exceptions so a bill can be heard by the end of the legislative year. According to him, “this is almost nearly impossible. It is essentially trying to get six months of work done in two weeks.”

And Tom Ammiano, who has his own, much stronger bill to mandate civilian oversight for the BART police, isn’t going to support the Swanson effort. He wants the best model rather than pushing a weak bill forward, says Quintin Mecke, his press secretary.

Swanson wants to move forward with the parts of the BART plan that everyone agrees on: The creation of a police auditor and a citizen review mechanism.

He remains optimistic that one way or another, there will be a bill containing both the police auditor and a citizen review board sometime this week.

When asked about the claim that the bill is highly water-down, Swanson responded by saying this claim, “misses clear understanding of the legislative process.”

Essentially, Swanson wants to leave the weak portions of the bill to possible future amendments and more bills. The idea is to get at least something passed this year, with the goal of coming back later to strengthen it.

But with the power of the police lobby, it’s possible that a weak, watered-down bill will pass – and never get improved. That’s the worst possible option.

Editor’s Notes

-
0

Tredmond@sfbg.com

The governor of California loves to talk about the state "living within its means." That, of course, means cutting education funding, closing state parks, stealing money from cities, wiping out hundreds of social programs, and never, ever, raising any taxes.

He has a different line on water.

The state’s economy is in a severe downturn, but California itself is far from broke. This is still a wealthy state. Between the big businesses and the rich individuals, there’s actually plenty of money in the overall economy to pay for schools and colleges and parks and health care. Defining our "means" as a level of spending that’s possible without raising taxes is a purely political decision that has nothing to do with economic reality. In fact, the California economy would be a lot better off today if Gov. Schwarzenegger hadn’t cut the vehicle license fee the day he took office. (Remember: public-sector jobs are just as legitimate a source of employment as private-sector jobs, and government spending is an excellent way to stimulate private growth.)

Freshwater, on the other hand, really is a finite resource. There’s only a certain amount of rain that falls on the state every year, only a certain amount of snowpack that melts in the spring, only a limited amount that can be stored in reservoirs. You can’t raise new water the way you can raise new revenue; even building new dams just takes water that would have gone downstream and holds it for another purpose.

The state’s freshwater has to meet a lot of demands. Farmers rely on it to irrigate crops — some of them crazy, unsustainable crops — in what is naturally a dry Serengeti. Giant cities and suburbs in the southern part of the state rely on it to fill swimming pools and water lawns. Most of the 38 million people who live in this state rely on precipitation runoff for their drinking water.

And if too much water from Northern California gets diverted before it reaches the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, then the complex, fragile ecosystem of the delta and the bay gets badly, maybe irreparably, damaged. And that has wide-reaching consequences (including the collapse of fisheries worth $250 million a year).

And yet, as Rebecca Bowe points out in this week’s cover story, the governor refuses to live within our hydrologic means.

It’s insane what’s been happening with the state’s water. Every year the Department of Water Resources offers to sell more water than the state actually has. In the severe drought of the early 1990s, water diversions from the delta were at record levels. In the current drought, diversions remain high. And that, the numbers suggest, is directly affecting fishing stocks. At this rate, there won’t be any salmon left in the delta in a few years. And that’s before the full impacts of global warming (and the likely decline in freshwater) play out.

Schwarzenegger’s solution: build more dams and a new canal to take more fresh water away from the delta.

The state Legislature is wrestling with a new water policy, and five bills are making the rounds. Some areas are getting desperate and trying what not long ago were considered nutty ideas — Marin County, for example, now wants to build a desalination plant, an expensive and energy-intensive way to get freshwater from the bay.

What nobody seems to want to say is that California, particularly the big agricultural operations in the Central Valley, simply waste too much water. The conservatives in the state capitol don’t believe in conservation.

Any serious Legislative plan has to start with a few fundamental facts. Freshwater flowing into the delta and out through the bay is not a wasted resource; the delta needs a lot more water than it’s currently getting to survive as an ecosystem. If that means the big water districts have to tell their clients to cut back on water use — using proven conservation methods and possibly switching to less water-intensive crops — then that’s a reality we’re going to have to live with. And more dams, canals, and pumping projects will just shift the problems from one part of the state to another.

California can survive on the water it has — if we stop the insanity.

Supes ask AG to drop last SF8 charges

-
0

By C. Nellie Nelson

Late last week, three members of the Board of Supervisors signed a letter urging Attorney General Jerry Brown to drop the charges against the remaining defendant of the San Francisco 8. The letter, signed by Supervisors Eric Mar, John Avalos and Chris Daly, calls the prosecution misguided: “Based on ‘confessions’ and other testimony extracted by torture and denial of right to counsel, this prosecution has been a disservice to the people of San Francisco.” They point out that the case has cost the city millions of dollars already.

In June Sup. Mar introduced a similar resolution urging the attorney general to drop the charges against the seven men (one had had charges dropped previously) to the Board’s Government Audit and Oversight Committee. The Committee opted to send the resolution to be heard by the full Board, but ended up postponing when budget disagreements literally overtook City Hall.

Then in early July, the prosecution agreed to drop the charges against five of the men, and allowed two men to accept much lesser charges, where they were credited with time served and received only probation. The one remaining defendant is Francisco Torres, who declined an offer to plead guilty to a lesser charge.

The case being largely dismissed, the board tabled the resolution. As there is now just one attorney and assistant, compared with an original team of sixteen attorneys, so the next hearing on the case was postponed to October 9.

The Attorney General’s office had not responded to the Guardian’s request for comment by Monday evening.

Prison report: CDCR won’t admit mistakes

-
6

By Just A Guy

Editors note: Just A Guy is an inmate in a California state prison. His blogs typically run twice a week.

It was a good week for Jaycee Dugard, who was discovered after being imprisoned for 18 years in an Antioch backyard. But it wasn’t a good week for the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, which missed several opportunities to solve the case, including two visits to the home of Phillip Garrido, the paroled sex offender who is charged with kidnapping Dugard.

But at least Contra Costa Sheriff Warren E. Rupf had the courage to admit the mistakes, ask forgiveness and take steps to assure that something like this would never happen again.

What was the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation response? Remember, CDCR is responsible not only for people in prison but for people on parole. In typical fashion, agency spokesman Gordon Hinkle denied that anything had gone wrong or that CDCR had been remiss in any way, and said that that the parole agent had gone in Garrido’s backyard but because of the way it was situated didn’t find anything strange.

Wait: These agents visited a registered sex offender’s house once a month, yet found nothing awry?

Far be it for the people at CDCR to even admit that they are doing a poor jobs. They never admit responsibility for anything. Yet they are tasked with rehabilitation.

Isn’t a key component of the rehabilitation process admitting your mistakes? What kind of example does it set when the entity so concerned about the public’s safety is incapable of admitting it has done something wrong performed poorly?

Examples like this should make it obvious that CDCR is not protecting you but protecting itself through a continuous enterprise of lying, hiding the truth, covering up the facts and skewing information in order to paint a picture or inmates as unrepentant evildoers bent on destruction — while coloring itself as a benign bureaucracy with the unenviable job of keeping us at bay by “walking the toughest beat.”

The beat is so “tough” that the parole agents didn’t thoroughly investigate the back yard of a convicted sex offender. I guarantee my parole officer would investigate my back yard if it were in such disarray – at the very least, the yard was ripe to be a meth lab and Garrido’s deranged rants would be a cause for concern.

But you know what one of the big problems with the scenario is? The parole agent probably had 200 people to watch, 100 of them no nonviolent offenders, so he or she didn’t have time to thoroughly investigate what was going on.

Wait – it was 18 years! Good job, CDCR.

Government’s number on priority is to protect the public, but with that comes a responsibility to define what the public is being protected from. Do we really need to be protected from a casual drug user, or even addict (any more than we need to be protected from a casual drinker or even an alcoholic)? If drugs were decriminalized, taxed and regulated by the FDA — or even handed out free to registered addicts – a large percentage of our property crimes would disappear. The black market would collapse, prices would drop and drug-related murders would decline.

But most important, parole officers wouldn’t have to be so overwhelmed that they don’t have the time to investigate the jungle-like backyard of a convicted rapist who believes he was inspired by God to commit atrocities on teenage girls.

Who are the real criminals here?

Prison report: A bomb plant?

-
0

By Just A Guy


Editors note: Just A Guy is a California state prison inmate. His blogs typically run twice a week, depending on his ability to communicate from behind bars.

“On Wednesday, 8/26/09, at approx 2015 hours, [NAME] discovered an anonymous note while retrieving the sick-call slips from the Facility Four drop box. The contents of the note stated that bomb-making materials, weapons and a zip gun are being passed through 21 and 22 buildings en route to Building 19. The note also indicates a riot is planned on Facility Four this week.”

This is the memo we woke up to this morning at California State Prison, Solano. This is the fifth time in 60 days that an anonymous note has been “discovered” in which a zip gun was part of the threat, and at least the seventh time since April of 2008 that the institution was locked down or placed on modified program because of a zip gun.

No zip gun has ever been found. I can’t wait to see evidence of the bomb manufacturing facility. Apparently one building manufactured the bombs, sends them to the finishing plant building, which then sends the finished product to the distribution building to be used in the riot!

This, folks, is your tax dollars at work. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation doesn’t believe in the boy who cried wolf, because anonymous notes are apparently held as fact and many person-hours of your tax dollars will be spent searching for the contraband. But the only real contraband they will find will be the cell phones brought in by the very same people searching for contraband zip guns and bomb-making materials.

The funny thing about this is that if an inmate were to ask for protection because he wanted out of a gang or feared for his life, he would have to provide verifiable evidence of the threat. Anonymous information is only viewed as potentially factual if the threat is posed to the safety of the institution or its officers. Verifiability only comes into play when an inmate asks for his or her own protection.

On a bright note, Arnold called the Assembly gutless and questioned the ease by which the Republicans voted to cut funding for education but were so scared of prison releases. Good for him.

The hypocrites in Sacramento and in the CDC never cease to amaze me. They truly try to get the public to believe that public safety is their main concern, but do so much to ensure the public’s detriment that it defies description.

I keep saying it over and over and over: The people in prison with less than a year left, violent or not, are all going to get out anyway, you fucking idiots.

A spike in crime may occur, but is that going to be because of releases, or because California’s unemployment rate is above 11 percent, there’s no money for education, and those released (early or not) can’t get a fucking job?

What’s the unemployment rate for parolees? And now, in this economy, who is going to hire a guy who just got out of prison with no practical job training or experience when some cat with an MBA is also applying for that barrista job at Starbucks because Mr. MBA used to work for General Motors — and now Mr. MBA’s kids can’t get any financial aid for college because MBA made too much money the year prior to being laid off. And even if the kids did have the money, they wouldn’t be able to start school until spring, because classes have been cut, so they take jobs at McDonald’s that could have been gone to parolees.

Shit flows downhill …

Really, they should just send all those early-released inmates to CSP Solano, where there seem to be plenty of positions available at the bomb, weapons and zip-gun manufacturing facility.

(PS: The lockdown finally ended about 11 a.m. ….)

Stop the chemical companies

-
3

By Tim Redmond

Sen. Mark Leno wants to stop the chemical industry from pumping toxic crap into products used by babies and kids. SB 772 ought to be a slam dunk — but the chemical companies are fighting back. There’s a plea on Calitics for people to get invoved and help.

Leno’s used to this sort of battle, but he told me even he is amazed by the chemical industry’s tactics. IF we can’t win this one — a very mild bill protecting children — you wonder if we can beat these folks at anything.

Prison report: A confederacy of morons

-
11

By Just A Guy


Editors note: Just A Guy is an inmate in a California state prison. His dispatches typically run twice a week, when he is able to communicate from behind bars.

It’s been a couple of weeks since I’ve blogged, but Tim was on vacation so my contact was away.

I suppose a lot has happened, but has it really? Assembly Speaker Karen Bass has postponed voting on prison cuts because the Assembly does not have enough votes to pass the bill that would enable releases.

It seems that the stumbling block is the reduction of some crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. The majority of the reductions seem to be property crimes, where the likelihood of violence is very slim. The glaring problem, at least to me, is the possession laws, which aren’t included.

I just feel that this state is run by such a bunch of morons I don’t really know why I write about it. Everyone is so afraid of actually facing the problems of the prison system that they just do nothing. In my business we call this “paralysis by analysis.”

“We walk the toughest beat.” Isn’t that the mantra of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation employees? What a crock.

The CDCR spends so much time trying to protect itself from itself it’s a wonder the operation can get anything done at all. It is, seriously, the most ineffective bureaucracy I’ve ever seen, with petty infighting from the rank and file all the way up to the senior administration. It’s a place where the product is the people that they are supposed to be protecting the public from — but the reality is that they have mastered putting the public in greater danger through creating a self-perpetuating machine in which their product becomes ever-more violent, thus ensuring CDCR’s future for the long hall.

What else has happened? Oh yeah, can’t forget about the riot down in Chino.

Surprisingly, Arnold attributed the riot to the overcrowded conditions and didn’t automatically use it as a mechanism to say how bad we all are and how this proves our incorrigibility.

I am not in a particularly good mood. I am so disgusted by this state, by CDCR, by the people who purport to have integrity but are willing to further their cause using any measure, irrespective of who gets in the way. I can’t wait for the day I am able to write about everything freely, and will get my chance to shed the true light on what’s happening at CDCR.

Editor’s Notes

-
0

tredmond@sfbg.com

Nobody really thinks the state budget deal is going to hold, and nobody really thinks San Francisco’s budget deficit is actually closed. So while the Legislature is in recess and the supervisors are moving on to other things, it’s worth thinking about what the next few months will bring. It won’t be pretty.

Paul Hogarth, writing for the online publication BeyondChron, pointed out Aug. 6 that San Francisco will lose more money due to state budget cuts than the city will gain from federal stimulus spending. The numbers are complicated and fluid (San Francisco will lose $100 million that the state will "borrow," but the city can immediately go to the bond market and borrow against the state debt — with any luck at the same interest rate the state will pay the city, so that should be a wash. Should — unless the lenders don’t want to gamble on the state’s debt.) But no matter how you slice it, San Francisco will be out something on the order of $18 million in state cuts alone.

There’s also the fact that nobody knows what the economy will do over the next six months. If employment doesn’t pick up, and consumer sales don’t pick up, and enough businesses get away with demanding property tax reductions, the revenue numbers projected by the Newsom administration will be wrong and things will be even worse. Sup. Ross Mirkarimi, who’s on the Budget Committee, told me he’s expecting at least $100 million in red ink for next year’s budget, and some of that will start to show up this fall.

I can’t even imagine what the 2010-11 budget will look like. By the time budget hearings begin next June, Gavin Newsom will either have won the Democratic primary for governor, and will have entirely checked out of City Hall, or he will have lost and will be angry, bitter, and vengeful.

We were mildly critical of Budget Committee Chair John Avalos this summer; he cut a deal with Newsom that requires the supervisors to believe that the mayor will work with them on any midyear cuts. The problem is that Newsom can’t be trusted. He’s already broken parts of this budget deal. So when, as is almost certain, he breaks his promise to work with the board on midyear cuts, the supervisors will have to take a much more aggressive stance than they did this summer.

Newsom will be in the middle of a heated race for governor — he won’t want to cut cops or firefighters, and he won’t even talk about taxes. (Although a recent Gallup Poll shows that only 46 percent of Americans think their taxes are too high, the lowest number to hold that view since 1961.)

It’s going to be war, and the progressives on the board need to be ready for it — or they’re going to get rolled, again. *

BART Police try to halt reform

-
2

By Tim Redmond

When the BART Board’s special committee on civilian oversight of the BART police came up with its draft proposal, it seemed as if the BART cops were going to (reluctantly) go along. It’s not the strongest review possible, and has some real flaws — among other things, the police union gets to pick a member of the oversight panel.

But the reform measure can’t pass without state legislation — BART is a creature of the state, and the law that created the agency didn’t give it the authority it needs to do effective police oversight. The changes aren’t major, but unless the state acts, there’s really no way for BART to implement even a modest plan.

And today, the BART Police union fired off a letter to the board announcing that it — along with the Peace Officers Research Association of California, a powerful statewide law-enforcement lobby — would oppose any state bill authorizing civilian oversight for BART.

Will Newsom get solar money back?

-
9

By Tim Redmond

According to a somewhat confusing story in the Examiner, SolarCity, a private company that installs solar panels, collected the lion’s share of $9.5 million in city subsidies under a Newsom program to encourage private homeowners to put up the panels. To make the public subsidy palatable, SolarCity promised to build an academy in Bayview to train unemployed San Franciscans to move into this growing field.

But if the Ex is accurate, SolarCity has just backed out of that promise, and won’t be building the academy at all.

So I’m wondering: Will Newsom ask for the city money back?

Not so far. We checked with his always acerbic press secretary, Nathan Ballard, who gave us a typically terse reply: “I’m not sure what the facts are.”

Hope he takes a few minutes to check it out.

Mexico report: Science and Indian genocide

-
0

By John Ross

MEXICO CITY — When President Felipe Calderon strode to the flag-bedecked podium in southern Mexico City last May 11th, at the nadir of the spring swine flu panic, and, under the strictest health protocols, lowered his “tapaboca” (surgical mask) to punch the button that would load “The Mexican Genome” onto the world’s computers, the only thing that seemed to be missing was a military band to strike up the National Anthem.

The human genome is the ordering of genes in a determined set of chromosomes that contain all the genetic and hereditary memory of the human organism, i.e. the history of our DNA. Although distinct genomes have been decoded for racial groupings — European Caucasians, Asians, and Africans — science has never before been assigned to decipher the genome of a national state or nation which is, by definition, a political entity, and many here questioned the existence of a “Mexican Genome.”

Despite the nay sayers, Dr. Gerardo Jimenez, director of the National Institute of Genomic Medicine (INMEGEN), whose scientists did the gene mapping, insists that the 89 deviations from genetic patterns found in other races justifies the national character of the “Mexican Genome.”

Other scientists scoffed at the INMEGEN project. Science writer Julio Munoz Rubio wondered if Calderon’s genome would prompt a genetic explanation for such peculiarly Mexican propensities as “mariachis, tequila, wife-beating, gay-bashing, and racist attitudes towards indigenous peoples.” Would a gene be discovered for electoral fraud and the corruption of public officials, asked one letter-writer to La Jornada, the left daily, pointing out that, according to a government audit, half a million Yanqui dollars appears to have gone missing during the construction of the INMEGEN headquarters in the south of the city.

Calderon’s political opponents also questioned the timing of the announcement of the discovery of the Mexican Genome during a health crisis that had been tainted by his administration’s overreaction to the swine flu pandemic after a six-week delay in alerting the public to the contagion.

The president countered his critics by lauding the cost benefits that the decoding of the Mexican Genome would mean for public health care. Cost effective preventative medicines and treatments could now be delivered to confront the nation’s Number One killers, diabetes and obesity. So-called “personalized” drugs would now be designed to deal with the health problems of the Mexican people. “Super Positive News!” read the crawl on the Univision report about the “Mexican Genome.”

But which Mexicans will be the beneficiaries of this cutting edge science? Mexico is, indeed, many nations. The vast bulk of the population — 80 million out of 103 million people — is of mixed European and indigenous stock (65% of the genetic material identified in the Mexican Genome is listed as “Amerindian”.) On the other hand, Mexico is home to 57 distinct ethnic groups or “peoples” (15 to 20 million, a fifth of all Mexicans) whose genetic make-up is distinct from the Mestizo population.

Muni: They love it

-
2

By Tim Redmond

This is fascinating: Phil Matier talks to Nat Ford about the latest round of Muni accidents, and the bus-system chief is remarkably upbeat, saying, in effect, that we have so many trains out there that these things are going to happen (except that it would be better if he had the money to hire more supervisors).

But there’s a great line at the start of the interview. Ford says that the fact that 700,000 people ride the buses and trains every day shows that “they like it … they enjoy it.”

Okay, I’m one of those sickos who really DOES like riding Muni, particularly when I’m not trying to get anyplace in a hurry. But I have to wonder: Is Ford being a bit too optimistic here? Don’t people ride Muni in part because they have to get to work and there’s no other choice?

Call Nancy Pelosi; fair hearing for single-payer

-
6

By Tim Redmond

Everybody knows the Democratic leadership has cut its deal, and single-payer health-care reform is off the table. But at least it will get a floor vote. And there’s still a chance for a major breakthrough in the debate: The House Dems could direct the Congressional Budget Office to prepare and release a comparative analysis of the cost of single-payer vs. the cost of all the other proposals.

So far, that isn’t happening, but Rep. Nancy Pelosi — who, as it turns out, represents San Francisco, although you wouldn’t always know it — could change that. Give her office a call and ask for a full CBO analysis of single payer.

District Office: 556-4862
DC Office: (202) 225-4965

I’d say calls are more effective right now than emails, but here’s an email link.

Prison report: Nothing to do

-
0

Editors note: Just A Guy is an inmate in a California state prison. His blogs run as frequently as he can get them to us from behind bars.

By Just a guy

We try in here to overcome ennui every day. The public seems to have only two ways of thinking about those of us who are incarcerated. One group believes the lie that we have lots of constructive things to do with our time and that we’re all entered into rehabilitation or vocational programs. The other would just as soon see us bored and miserable because we’re supposed to be “punished.”

I try to take an objective view of the situation and try to find a reasonable reprieve from the constant repetition that is prison life, but often find that the conditions are a breeding ground for resentment.

You see, there is no real respite from the monotony that is our daily task. There are things to do – watch tv, listen to the radio, read, exercise, go to church – but for the most part, our lives often seem purposeless and without direction.

One must remember that many people in prison have not come from backgrounds in which they had ideal family lives or had role models or teachers for guidance. When you have been given an empty tool box, try to build a house. Even the best intentions and plans will generally come to naught.

Oh, but for a hammer and a nail

Editor’s Notes

-
0

tredmond@sfbg.com

I am done talking about Chris Daly’s personal life. It’s been a nasty, ugly discussion this past week or so, and if you want a taste, you can go to the Guardian politics blog and read dozens and dozens of comments attacking Daly, attacking me, attacking progressives in general, and raging about hypocrisy.

Okay, I’m almost done. I want to say a word about hypocrisy. I’m not so into buying foreclosed houses; it does stink of profiting off someone else’s misery. But the banks are the ones doing the foreclosure and eviction, not the buyer.

Which is not the case with Ellis Act evictions and tenancy-in-common purchases/condo conversions. You buy a TIC, you’re evicting someone, some tenant who is not quite as well-off as you. It’s legal, and not everyone who buys a TIC is evil, and I know all the caveats — but nearly all the people who have been attacking Daly (and me) in the online comments I’ve read (and in print articles, witness Michela Alioto-Pier) are supporters of TICs and condo conversions, which they refer to as homeownership opportunities.

Yes: homeownership opportunities. Yes: evictions. I’m not defending Daly here, I’m just saying.

Now then: The thing I’m not done talking about is the constant, implied, and often direct supposition that the suburbs are better places than San Francisco to raise kids. I beg to differ.

I grew up in a suburb, mostly white, mostly middle class. (More middle class than the suburbs today because the middle class was bigger and doctors, plumbers, and factory workers lived in the same subdivisions — but still, pretty homogenous.)

Today’s suburbs are more racially mixed, slightly. But they’re still essentially homogenous.

My kids go to a wonderful public school (McKinley Elementary) where everyone isn’t just like them. Some kids have one parent, or two, or are raised by relatives. Some kids go on nice fancy vacations for spring break, and some kids get their main caloric intake from the subsidized breakfast and lunch. A lot of kids don’t speak English as a first language. And for my son and daughter, they are all classmates and friends.

Yes, Chuck Nevius: Michael and Vivian see homeless people on the streets. Usually we give them money. And we talk, my kids and I, about why there are people who have no place to live, and why it’s important not just to give to charity but to try to change the conditions that allow billionaires to pay low taxes while people sleep on the streets.

And last Friday, Vivian and the other seven-year-old campers at Randall Museum camp (public, city-funded, open to all) finished a two-week session on hip-hop dance with a performance that literally made me cry.

My kids are city kids, San Francisco kids. We kick suburban ass. *

California: Fragmented, or what?

-
8

By Tim Redmond

Calitics is awash with talk about the new Field Poll on California demographics And although the SF Chron has ignored it, ol’ Dan Walters at the Sacto Bee is all over it, lamenting that the poll shows “the division of a once-cohesive society into its many component parts.”

Robert Cruikshank takes issue with Walters:

California’s society has never, ever been cohesive. Not in the 20th century, not in the 19th century, not even during the dozens of millennia of Native American settlement. Certainly our electorate hasn’t been cohesive. Until the 1950s state politics were defined by an urban-rural split with a crosscutting cleavage (apologies for the poli sci jargon) of intensive racial division. Even after the legal barriers of racial exclusion came down at mid-century segregation and discrimination persisted.

All of which is certainly true. He continues:

Some fragmentation is likely to continue. Californians are continuing to self-segregate according to political preference, leaving only the newer and affordable exurbs as the few places in the state up-for-grabs.

And blames the political structure:

What I see as the main problem facing California is obsolescence. Our government and our politics are still stuck in 1978. We’ve had fragmentation and a well-governed state, and fragmentation and a badly-governed state. That suggests to me we need to look at a system of governance that has remained almost unchanged since 1978 despite all the demographic changes reported in the Field Poll.

Again, true — and getting rid of the two-thirds majority for budget approval would make a big difference. It wouldn’t, however, undo all of the other awful things about state politics, including Prop. 218, which makes it almost impossible for local government to raise taxes, and Prop. 13, which is in many ways the root cause of the state’s total economic meltdown.

Paul Hogarth at Beyond Chron imagines

a California where the state legislature passes a budget by majority rule, and you can register to vote on Election Day. Three Strikes has been reformed to require the third “strike” to be a violent felony, and we have single-payer health care. The wealthy pay a higher income tax rate, and – just like in Alaska and Texas – oil companies must pay a modest tax for the privilege of extracting oil.

And Hogart argues that the progressives need to take back the initiative process to make that happen.

For once, I’m going to be the downer here: I don’t see progressives winning a whole lot of major statewide initiatives that make structural reforms in California government. We can win one or two — we can certainly overturn Prop. 8, and maybe repeal the two-thirds tax rule.

Mar takes on cronyism

-
5

By Tim Redmond

I’m glad to see the entire progressive bloc on the Board of Supervisors stepping up to crack down on Newsom administration cronyism. The measure, of course, is a response to Newsom’s move to appoint Police Commission President Theresa Sparks to a juicy city job as the head of the Human Rights Commission.

I’m not here to say anything bad about Sparks; The HRC deals with discrimination, and Lord knows Sparks has experienced her share. She’s also been a business executive and is a smart and talented person.

But she played a key role with Newsom in choosing the new police chief — and suddenly, she’s rewarded with a city job. It certainly looks funky. And it hurts everyone’s reputation — Newsom looks as if he’s repaying a political debt with hihg-paying job. Sparks looks like someone who played ball with the mayor and got a reward. The new police chief — who by all accounts is a straight shooter — comes out looking awful, too; I have no real reason to suspect a shabby deal here, but it sure gives what one calls the “appearance of inpropriety.”

Mar’s bill is cosponsored by Ross Mirarimi, David Chiu, David Campos and Chris Daly. I dare Newsom to veto it.

Will SF sue PG&E?

-
0

By Tim Redmond

The San Francisco Local Agency Formation Commission met last week in a rare closed session, and the Board of Supervisors Goverment Audit and Oversight Committee will meet next week in closed session to discuss the possibility of litigiation against Pacific Gas and Electric Company over it’s anti-public=power ballot initiative.

I don’t know the legal strategy and Sup. Ross Mirkarimi, who chairs both LAFCO and GAO, can’t comment on it. But I do know that the state law authorizing the creation of Community Choice Aggregation programs in California cities bars PG&E from interfering with local governments and trying to undermine CCAs. So it’s at least arguable that the utility is breaking the law by trying to make it nearly impossible to enact CCAs or any other public-power projects in the state.

I assume, and hope, that the City Attorney’s Office is looking at every possible strategy here. Because if this gets on the ballot, with PG&E’s unlimited cash resources, it’s going to be a huge, expensive campaign.

Is everything Chris Daly’s fault?

-
9

73109glynda.jpgwilsey.jpg

Is she a good witch, or a bad witch?

By Tim Redmond

To read the Chronicle these days (and some of the comments on sfgate.com) you’d think the District Six supervisor had the power to single-handedly destroy the entire city.

Today’s entry: Daly Forces Lovely, Generous Arts Commissioner To Resign.

Actually, as reporter Heather Knight noted in her blog update, all 11 supervisors voted to change the disclosure rules for Arts Commission members. The mayor signed the bill. And there’s actually a reason for this: The Arts Commission may sound like a ceremonial body that goes around shining statues, but these folks actually oversee a lot of money. San Francisco requires that all major developments and civic projects contribute two percent of the cost of construction to public art; that’s a big pile of cash, and the commission monitors it.

So what’s the big hairy deal here? Why can’t Dede Wilsey fill out the forms like everyone else? Why is Jeannene Przyblyski, wife of political consultant Eric Jaye, so determined not to disclose information that’s mostly public anyway?

Please: This isn’t about Chris Daly.

And by the way: Dede Wilsey may have money and give some to the arts, and she wears fine gowns and looks like she ought to be in an old Disney movie, but she also promoted the underground parking lot in Golden Gate Park and the Fisher Museum at the Presidio and fought like hell to prevent Saturday street closures in the park. I suspect the Arts Commission will survive just fine without her.

Who’s in charge again?

-
0

By Tim Redmond

I’m glad to read in the Chron that Christine Soto-DeBerry likes her job, and is willing to defend her boss against charges that he’s flouting the needs of Latino business leaders, but her descrition of her responsibilities in the Newsom administration was a little weird:

“Being a Latino, a minority, in this administration, that has not been my experience,” Soto-DeBerry said. “I am essentially second in command, which speaks volumes about (Newsom). I have been very humbled by the opportunity, and a lot of advocates are grateful to have a Latina in a high post in the administration that they can reach out to.”

“Essentially second in command?” Does that mean that Steve Kawa isn’t the chief of staff anymore and Soto-DeBerry reports directly to Newsom? Or does it mean that in the Newsom administration, she and Kawa are running things anyway because the “First in Command” is never around?

By the way: The complaint small business owners had was not that Newsom didn’t hire or promote Latinos in his administration. The problem is that Newsom is planning to fire the popular Christopher Iglesias, director of the Human Rights Commission, and they fear that the HRC won’t be as vigorous about helping minority businesses get city contracts.

Prison report: The laws are wrong

-
0

Editors note: Just A Guy is an inmate in a California state prison. His blogs typically run on Mondays and Thursdays, although it’s sometimes hard to communicate from prison.

By Just A Guy

Today Brett Pedroia, the brother of Boston Red Sox all-star Dustin Pedroia, received one year in jail and eight years probation for the molestation of a nine-year-old boy.

Last month, Dante Stallworth received 30 days in jail, community service, and probation for killing a man inFlorida while driving while intoxicated.

And here I sit, among many others, serving multiple years in prison for possession of a controlled substance — which is a victimless crime. Yes, I know that friends and family get hurt by our behavior if we’re addicts, but let’s face it – the emotional pain an addict causes to friends and family is not too different that caused by a verbally abusive spouse, parent or boss. Yet those people aren’t generally considered criminals.

Now that the governor has signed the budget, and part of the budget cuts more than $1 billion from corrections, it’s likely that a lot of us will be released. Remember thought, we are only released from prison, not from the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. We will be on parole, which is change in custody status.

Let me ask you, would you rather have Brett Pedroia living next to you (a convicted child molester) or me, a recovering addict clean and sober for two years and eight months?

And what about Stallworth? Sure, he isn’t likely to rob you or molest your child, but will he drive drunk and kill your kid or someone else?

The BART police review plan

-
1

By Tim Redmond

The BART Board has released a final draft of its new police-oversight policy, and you can comment on it at a public meeting tomorrow (Thursday) at 6:30 PM at the Joseph Bort Metro Center Auditorium, 101 Eight St. Oakland.

There’s a lot to digest; you can read the whole thing here (PDF). In essence, the Board would create an 11-member citizen oversight commission and an independent police auditor; the auditor would investigate complaints and the commission would monitor the auditor.

It’s going to be a fairly conservative commission — each of the nine BART Board member gets to appoint one commissioner, and it’s a fairly conservative BART Board. And — in a move that’s pretty shocking — BART wants to allow the police unions to appoint their own rep to the commission. (A final member would be chosen at-large by the entire BART board).

And here’s the big problem: The auditor can’t impose discipline — that’s up to the police chief (who reports, by the way, to the BART general manager, not the BART Board). Nothing weakens civilian oversight more than a police chief who won’t discipline the troops, and I suspect that’s what’s going to happen at BART, where the chief didn’t even bother to show up for most of the community meetings on civilian oversight.

The Newsom campaign’s in trouble

-
4

By Tim Redmond

Lots of interesting opinions about what the loss of Eric Jaye means to the Newsom campaign. Paul Hogarth at Beyond Chron Thinks that Garry South, who is now in charge, could lead to Newsom’s downfall. Brian Leubitz at Calitics thinks that

Eric Jaye was an enormous asset to Newsom’s campaign. It is hard to see how a departure of somebody with that kind of relationship and with that kind of intricate knowledge of the candidate is good for the campaign.

And Jerry Roberts, who has been covering politics in this state even longer than I have, thinks this is exactly what the Newsom campaign needs:

The last political consultant to elect a Democrat governor of the state, the Duke of Darkness is a bare-knuckles, in-your-face, shoe-leather, hand-to-hand combat veteran who has two main tasks: 1) Get his candidate to raise a ship load of money and 2) Needle, badger and tweak primary rival Jerry Brown at every turn.

A few thoughts:

1. Everyone agrees that South is, in political terms, an asshole, someone who loves negative campaigning and sees the key to victory as raising tons of money and trashing your opponent. He has had both success (Gary Davis, at first) and failure (Gray Davis, later; Joe Lieberman, Steve Westly) with that approach.

But the thing to keep in mind is that, whatever you think of Newsom’s politics, this isn’t his style. Newsom’s not a brawler; he wouldn’t even show up at supervisors meetings to argue with Chris Daly. He’s much more of a stand-in-the-well-scripted-public-meeting-with-a-cordless-mike kinda guy. In fact, if this becomes a bloodbath, Newsom loses; he can’t take a punch. Real conflict makes his nervous. And I don’t think Jerry Brown will come out of the gate with a negative campaign, but if Newsom starts it, Brown will respond.

2. Newsom ought to be the clear front-runner in this race. It’s almost a textbook campaign — the new, fresh face, the young, tech-savvy charmer with the grand ideas against the been-there-done-that crabby old pol who has changed his political stripes so many times it’s hard to know what he actually believes in any more. That’s what Eric Jaye was trying to do. Sure, the fundraising was slow, and Jaye mistakenly thought that Newsom could pull an Obama (I’ve seen Barack Obama, and Mr. Mayor, you’re no Barack Obama). But if they could raise enough to be competitive, they had the right strategy.

3. It’s hard to win a Democratic primary without the progressives in California. And South has done everything possible in his career to anger and alienate progressives.

4. Eric Jaye is no fool — he had hitched his own star to Newsom long ago, was looking not just at Sacramento but beyond — and if he thought South’s approach was the correct one, that it would lead to victory, he wouldn’t have been so quick to bail.

I dunno — Jerry Brown ought to be terribly vulnerable at this point, but I think Newsom’s campaign is in trouble.

1...697071...116Page 70 of 116

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