Tim Redmond

Newsom’s new spirit of cooperation …

-
0

13009mirk.jpg13009alioto.jpg

By Tim Redmond

… Is utter bullshit.

The mayor proclaimed that he’s going to try harder to work with the Board of Supervisors, and that he sees David Chiu as much more of a potential ally than outgoing board prez Aaron Peskin — but already we’re seeing what that means. Consider:

The supervisors voted 8-0 last week to nominate Ross Mirkarimi for a coveted slot on the California Coastal Commission. It’s an important job, and requires someone with a strong comittment to environmental issues. So what does Newsom do? He ignores the board vote, refuses to defer to the unanimous wishes of Mirkarimi’s colleagues, and instead puts forward Michela Alioto-Pier.

That’s Alioto-Pier, who loves developers and is among the worst environmental votes on the board. Alioto-Pier, who got appointed to the Golden Gate Bridge District a while back then missed half the meetings. Alioto-Pier, who would never get the support of more than two of her colleagues for any kind of important or high-profile job.

The final decision is in the hands of State Sen. President Darryl Steinberg, who has a few more pressing things to think about at the moment.

But the Sierra Club is supporting Mirkarimi. Assembly member Tom Ammiano is supporting Mirkarimi. State Sen. Leland Yee is supporting Mirkarimi. I haven’t been able to reach Sen. Mark Leno yet, but he ought to be supporting Mirkarimi.

Which leaves the mayor defying the supes, defying most of the state Legislative delegation and pushing an unqualified candidate in what can only be an F.U. to the supervisors he so recently pledged to work with. (I emailed his press office and asked why Newsom did this, but they haven’t gotten back to me.)

Some spirit of cooperation.

UPDATE: Leno tells me he is supporting Mirkarimi. But there’s a new twist: The mayor CAN’T nominate Alioto-Pier for the Coastal Commission. He doesn’t have the legal authority. It turns out that in a city and county like San Francisco, nominations can only be made by the supervisors. Government Code Section 50279.2 states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, in any county in which there is only one incorporated city, the legislative body of such city is hereby created and shall serve as the city selection committee

Newsom didn’t check before he put the word out, and now he looks like a fool. In fact, I’m told his office is now trying to pretend they never nominated Alioto-Pier in the first place. (Not that the mayor ever worried about things like state law in managing his office.

Hell of a job our guy is doing running this town.

The shit we’re up against

-
3

13009adams.jpg

By Tim Redmond

Why is it so hard to get a budget deal out of Sacramento? While the gov blames the Legislature, let’s take a look at why it’s almost impossible to get Republican members of the state Assembly or Senate to vote for a tax hike.

Case study: Assembly Member Anthony Adams, R-Hesperia.

Adams emerged from a Republican caucus meeting a few days back to say that a budget deal would require both sides to give in on some hot-button issues. The Democrats would have to accept major cuts in popular programs — and the GOP would have to accept some tax increases.

He is now in serious political trouble.

Two popular right-wing L.A. radio nuts, John and Ken, put out a “call to battle stations”, lambasted Adams for 45 screeching minutes on the air, then put a graphic of the Assemblymember’s severed head on a stick on their website. Adams admits that voting for even modest tax hikes, as a part of a broader budget that includes massive spending cuts, will probably be the end of his political career.

“This,” Assembly member Tom Ammiano told me, “is the shit we’re up against.” The radical anti-tax crew in the GOP is preparing to trash, abuse, challenge and if necessary recall any Republican we dares talk of taxes. And since the Legislative districts in California are so successfully gerrymandered to give Democrats more power, the Republican seats are VERY Republican and these anti-tax nuts have a lot of power.

That’s why the two-thirds majority for approving a budget is crippling this state.

The District Six dance begins

-
10

12909WKR.JPG12909KIM.JPG
Walker, Kim

By Tim Redmond

Chris Daly will be the district six supervisor for the next two years (minus a couple of weeks), but already the dance to replace him is underway — with some surprising names floating around.

It’s no secret that Debra Walker is running, and with her long record on land-use and planning issues and her LGBT community leadership, she starts out as the leading progressive in the race. SOMA activist Jim Meko has joined the fray, too.

And the rumor mill is abuzzin with talk that School Board member Jane Kim, who by all accounts has a bright political future, is considering the race. Kim recently moved to D6, and we’ve heard from a number of people who’ve been contacted by Kim supporters about a possible supervisorial bid. Kim herself is a bit more coy: “I’m not announcing a campaign,” she told me. But she didn’t entirely rule it out: “Right now, I’m not a candidate. I haven’t decided what I’m going to do in 2010; everything’s on the table.”

And then there’s Michael Yarne, who last year left Martin Builders to take a job with the Mayor’s Office of Economic Development. Mayor Newsom doesn’t have a clear horse in that race yet (Rob Black, who works for the Chamber of Commerce, may run again, but he lost last time and is clearly a Chamber toadie, so his hopes in the liberal district aren’t that good). Yarne told us that he’s been contacted by people who think he’d be a good candidate, and he hasn’t entirely ruled it out, but “there’s no way I could run right now because I don’t live in the district.” Yarne rents in D9.

For my money, Kim is one of the brighest young stars in local politics, and she ought to stay on the school board, where she’s doing a great job, for another term, then start looking at other offices.

Look! SF Newspapers have discovered the Internet!

-
0

By Tim Redmond

This is a wonderful little moment in history. I particularly like the fact that the Examiner editor says “we’re not going to make any money off this.”

And of course, also the comment

This crazy machine could revolutionize the way in which millions of men beat off

How Margaret Brodkin was fired

-
1

By Tim Redmond

Interesting how the mayor tries to spin away his dismissal of Margaret Brodkin, the feisty and highly respected director of the Department of Children, Youth and their Families. Here’s the mayor’s press release:

Margaret Brodkin to take new position as Director of New Day for Learning

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Today Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that he has asked
Maria Su, current Deputy Director of the Department of Children, Youth and
their Families (DCYF), to become the Acting Director of DCYF.

“During Maria’s tenure, DCYF has become one of San Francisco’s most
respected and influential organizations, making children one of the city’s
highest public policy priorities,” said Mayor Newsom. “She has overseen the
department’s core service areas, including early care and education, family
support, health and nutrition, out-of-school programs, violent response and
youth workforce development, as well as the Wellness Centers, Beacons and
Transitional Age Youth initiatives.”

After over four years of service as Director of DCYF, Margaret Brodkin is
leaving her position in order to become Director of the New Day for
Learning Initiative. The Initiative is a collaboration among city, school
and community partners, and is being funded, in part, by the Mott
Foundation.

“New Day for Learning is an important initiative, and one that will put San
Francisco in the national spotlight of education reform and city and school
partnerships,” said Mayor Newsom. “As the Director of New Day for Learning,
Margaret will continue her pioneering work in local child advocacy, and on
improving the lives of every child and youth in San Francisco.”

Sounds like Brodkin just decided it was time to take another job.

But wait: Here’s what Brodkin told her supporters today:

Dearest Colleagues,

Although he has praised my service and called me a “superstar,” Mayor Newsom has asked me to leave DCYF. Today will be my last day as Director. I am disappointed to be unable to complete the work that I have begun, but I leave behind a talented and dedicated DCYF staff, a broad network of wonderful partners, and many exciting projects in the works. I hope DCYF will continue to thrive

In other words, Newsom fired her. Why? Well, I haven’t been able to reach Brodkin to see if she wants to tell her side of the story. But let me speculate for a moment.

I think it’s fair to say the Mayor Newsom will be taking aim in the next few months at all of the set-asides in the city budget. I think he is looking toward a November ballot measure that will include “budget reform” — which means no more special earmarked programs.

One of the major earmarks he’ll try to eliminate: The Children’s Fund. That was Brodkin’s pet project and she was instrumental in getting it passed. I suspect the mayor, who hates dissent in the ranks, didn’t want to go forward seeking a “reform” in funding for kids programs that his own DCYF chief would loudly and visibly opppose.

Just my suspicion.

I have had a few minor clashes with Brodkin since she went to City Hall, but I have to say that she has been one of the single most tireless and dedicated champions of children and families in San Francisco, has devoted her life to the cause and was one of the few members of the Newsom administration who cared more about the cause than about political ambition. I suspect this new gig is just temporary, and she’ll soon be back raising hell on the streets, where we need her.

Budget woes show new political calculus

-
1

By Rebecca Bowe

About 150 labor representatives and health-service providers turned out at last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting to sound off on drastic budget cuts that many said would weaken an already-strained safety net for populations who are most in need. For more than four hours, representatives from homeless-advocacy groups; clinics serving the uninsured, sex workers or other disenfranchised populations; youth organizations that strive to keep kids off the street; labor-union representatives; stressed-out hospital staffers and many others gave the board an earful. The overwhelming majority urged the Board of Supervisors to approve a special election for June 2, which would give voters an opportunity to decide whether to establish new taxes as a way of generating revenue, rather than relying solely on deep cuts to solve the city’s budget woes.

The city is facing a budgetary crisis of unprecedented scale, with a daunting $576 million deficit. When Mayor Gavin Newsom appeared before the supervisors last December to ask for their cooperation in tackling the budget shortfall, he described it as arguably the most daunting crisis the city has seen since the Great Depression. (Newsom was attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland yesterday.)

While the members of the board put off the decision as to whether or not to actually hold a special election, they did pass a measure allowing for the option to stay open. With Supervisors Alioto-Pier, Chu and Elsbernd voting no, the board approved an emergency measure to waive regular election procedures that would have prevented the tax measure from being placed on a June 2 ballot.

Nor did the board vote on an amended budget package, which was introduced by Supervisor Chris Daly to counter Mayor Gavin Newsom’s mid-year budget cuts. Daly’s list of alternative cuts targeted management-level positions, mayoral communications staff and funding for the opera, ballet and symphony in an effort to free up funds that could then be diverted to sectors such as public health.

Instead of adopting Daly’s amended list of cuts, supervisors voted 6-5 on a motion — called by Supervisor Sean Elsbernd — to send the whole thing back to the Budget & Finance Committee for a closer look. “All of this needs to be analyzed,” Elsbernd said after questioning a few management-level cuts included in the list. “To push this forward today without total understanding of the impact of each and every one of these — and these are just the ones I’ve caught while sitting here! — God knows what else is in there. I’m just saying, let’s have this fully vetted.” Supervisors Alioto-Pier, Chiu, Chu, Dufty, Elsburnd and Maxwell supported the motion.

That left an interesting and somewhat mixed message about the politics of the new board. Supervisors Dufty and Maxwell, who will be the swing votes on anything that requires a supermajority (to override a mayoral veto) stayed with the progressives on the vote for a June election. But Chiu – elected board president entirely with progressive support – sided with the mayor’s allies and the moderates on the budget re-allocation vote.

We’ll have to see how this new calculus plays out in the next few weeks.

Editor’s Notes

-
0

› tredmond@sfbg.com

Just about every progressive economist agrees that the federal bailout bill should include money to help state and local government. I agree. Forcing government to lay off public sector workers and cut services is the worst thing you can do in a recession.

But in a strange way, some sick, contrary part of me almost hopes the Obama administration doesn’t bail out California. Federal money would let us off easy. It would let us do what just about everyone in Sacramento desperately wants to do right now: figure out a way to get out of this mess for another year. Then we can all hope things will get better again.

But they won’t, is the thing. As the San Francisco Chronicle reported Jan. 25, the weak economy is leading to a lot of home sales, and a lot of those sales are at prices below the level of the property’s current tax assessment. So property tax revenue will be dropping this year – but they’ll stay low next year, and the year after, and the year after that. Because under Proposition 13, property taxes can’t go up by more than 2 percent a year. So even as the economy recovers and property values rise, those houses and commercial properties sold at bargain basement levels today will continue to enjoy nice tax cuts for the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile, the state already owes billions from previous one-time borrowing to cover previous one-time budget solutions. And since most of the money comes from taxes that are highly unstable and move with the economy (sales taxes, for example), the budget hole is going to get worse before it gets better.

This is no way to run the world’s eighth-largest economy.

And I keep thinking: could this finally be our chance to do something about it? Might things get so bad this year that people start asking about actual radical change?

And when I talk about radical change, I’m not talking about a tax here or there. I’m talking about somebody in the Legislature standing up and saying, if we were going to create from scratch a system to fund the state of California, what would it look like? And I can tell you, it would look nothing like the Winchester Mystery House of tax laws that we have today.

I won’t be the one called on to draft the blueprint for a new California revenue system, which is probably a good thing. But I can make a few observations and offer a few proposals that almost everyone with any sense agrees ought to be on the table.

First, California may be broke right now, but many of its residents are not. Generally speaking, the fairest types of taxes are income taxes, and the state doesn’t charge the people with very high earnings anywhere near enough. And since the rich don’t tend to suffer as much as the rest of us in recessions, that’s a fairly stable resource.

We don’t do enough to capture our share of the money companies make off California’s resources, either. This is an oil-producing state, yet we have no tax on oil at the wellhead; even Louisiana has that. And we don’t do nearly enough to charge consumers for the damage they do to the environment (the car tax being the most obvious example).

But beyond that, we tax goods and manufacturing, which is no longer the base of our economy, and let services go free. Some services are necessary and should be exempt (medical care, for example). But are the people who pay for, say, personal trainers or cosmetic surgery by and large better off financially than the rest of us? I suspect they are. Should they be taxed on what is by almost any standard a luxury service?

The point is, we need to stop looking at this as a one-time problem. This year’s deficit is the canary in the financial coal mine. Maybe instead of a ballot measure on one tax plan, we should have an election to reconsider Prop. 13, the tax code, and the entire way we finance the state. The system is about to collapse. Maybe we should start again, and get it right this time.

The new Bay Bridge is cracked?

-
0

By Tim Redmond

Nice work by Matier and Ross reporting on cracks in the Bay Bridge welds. I found the comments of Caltrans officials a bit alarming:

After consulting with a structural steel expert from Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, Caltrans officials concluded the decks will be safe, and that the earlier problems were the result of strict weld standards that essentially allowed for no cracks. In other words, a few minor cracks are OK.

Okay, I’m not an expert in structural steel fabrication and welding, but my brother is in the construction biz and is an AWS-certified welder. He’s obviously not in Shanghai, and he didn’t look at the panels, but he did tell me one thing:

“A few minor cracks are not okay.”

Welding is about joining two pieces of metal together. If there’s a crack in the weld, “it’s going to lead to more cracks,” he told me. “Structural welds should have no cracks at all.”

Makes sense to me.

Martin Delaney: A lion is no more

-
5

12609delaney.jpg


By Tim Kingston

Martin Delaney, who died Jan. 23, had more lives than one could imagine. The word “Zelig” has even been used. Delaney was an AIDS activist, the founder of Project Inform, a thorn in the side of the Government, an HIV treatment smuggler, a disreputable associate of the bad boys of Level 242, the creator of a cuddly corporate mascot (we still can’t talk about this), but more than anything else he was an inspiration with a wicked sense of humor and a talent for spurring people onto activism.

It seems ages ago now. HIV was AIDS and a death sentence in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. There were few drugs, but Martin Delaney inspired people to stay alive and active. “What stands out is the extent to which Marty traveled from city to city when there was no hope,” said Curtis Ponzi, AIDS activist and early collaborator with Delaney. “He went places where there was no hope, not L.A., not San Francisco. He went places where people had no help, and he spoke about hope. He spoke about the need to get treated and tested, and that there were things you could do, when everyone else was saying pack up your bags and get ready to die. He was a lion.”

Delaney died at 63 of liver cancer, brought on by cirrhosis caused by Hepatitis B, the disease that first brought him to California from Chicago in 1978 for an experimental treatment. The treatment worked and cleared the disease, but the damage had been done, although he lived far longer than he would have otherwise. It is entirely possible that early experience with an experimental treatment gave him a foundation of hope when everything else looked damned to failure in the early days of HIV.

Herrera weighs in on utility shutoffs

-
0

By Tim Redmond

Foreclosures can be tough on tenants, and some people are facing evictions. But even if the bank doesn’t toss you out, the previous owner might have stopped paying the utility bills, leaving you with no electricity.

CIty Attorney Dennis Herrera has weighed in with an opinion (PDF) asserting that it’s illegal to shut off power to a tenant after a foreclosure. PG&E can get fines $1,000 a day for cutting off your power. There’s info there on how you can fight back.

Pelosi targets Bush tax cuts

-
0

By Tim Redmond

Here’s some very good news from someone who is not my favorite politician: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pushing to repeal the Bush tax cuts, two years before they expire.

We’re talking about a lot of money here — $226 billion. And all coming from the top 1 percent of the richest people in America.

Obama sunshine, at home

-
2

By Tim Redmond

The Obama policy on open government is really remarkable, and the memo his press secretary sent out goes far beyond what I’ve seen from almost any political official. Check it out:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release January 21, 2009

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

SUBJECT: Freedom of Information Act

A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency. As Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” In our democracy, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which encourages accountability through transparency, is the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open Government. At the heart of that commitment is the idea that accountability is in the interest of the Government and the citizenry alike.

The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public.

All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.

The presumption of disclosure also means that agencies should take affirmative steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests from the public. All agencies should use modern technology to inform citizens about what is known and done by their Government. Disclosure should be timely.

So I’m wondering: Perhaps the Honorable Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco, should send out a similar memorandum to city agencies. It could say, for example:

The San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.

I asked Nathan Ballard, the mayor’s press secretary, about that, and here’s what he told me. (Those of you have have tangled with the mayor’s office over public records, please hold your puke):

We wholeheartedly agree with the President on this issue. The mayor has
charged my office with handling sunshine requests for the executive branch
of city government, and he has directed us to cooperate swiftly and
comprehensively to all sunshine requests, and to err on the side of
openness.

Coulda fooled me.

I eagerly await the Newsom Sunshine Memo.

The truth about Community Choice Aggregation

-
0

By Amanda Witherell and Tim Redmond

It would be easy to just ignore last week’s SF Weekly story on
San Francisco’s energy policy.

The piece was exactly what we’ve come to expect from the Weekly – a direct attack on progressive San Francisco. It used all the buzzwords – “risky,” “radical,” “scheme.” It selectively chose facts and presented them without context.

But stuff like this sticks around, and people read it, so somebody has to set the record straight.

The running theme of the piece, by Peter Jamison, is that Community Choice Aggregation, an energy plan that would allow the city to be the wholesale buyer and provider of power to residents, comes with a high risk. In an effort to get greener power, the article charges, the city may wind up raising electric rates – “which could have a crippling impact on the city’s poorest residents.”

Of course, PG&E is going to raise electricity rates every year for the foreseeable future, and high PG&E rates are already having a crippling impact on poor people, small businesses and the local economy. But that’s not addressed in the story.

The truth is, CCA is only “risky” if you (a) assume that PG&E, which has been in and out of bankruptcy and continues to seek rate hikes, will somehow be a risk-free source of energy in the future and (b) assume that there’s no risk whatsoever to continuing to rely almost entirely on nuclear power and fossil fuels for our energy needs.

SF Weekly’s sleazy new deal

-
0

By Tim Redmond

Village Voice Media, the owner of SF Weekly, has entered into a business deal with LikeMe.com, a weak competitor to Yelp. But already, the arrangement has generated controversy: The Seattle Altweekly The Stranger reports that many of the comments on this new site — comments promoted on the front page of the SF Weekly’s web site — are in fact promos for SF Weekly advertisers, written by SF Weekly ad staff. The Stranger notes:

The majority of Likeme’s reviews—which appear on 12 VVM websites, next to editorial content about the businesses—are written by ad representatives for VVM. The reviews, which are exclusively positive, focus on businesses that advertise in VVM papers.

For example, if you search for a review of Nick’s Crispy Tacos on the San Francisco Weekly’s site, a review from Likeme user LaraW is prominently displayed on the San Francisco Weekly’s page for the restaurant under the heading “The Inside Word on Nick’s Crispy Tacos.”

“If you’re looking for a great midweek activity that doesn’t cost a fortune, this is a great place to go,” LaraW gushes. “The crowd is always fun and the food is awesome.”

“Lara W” is actually Lara Weiss, the advertising coordinator for the San Francisco Weekly, where Nick’s Crispy Tacos advertises.

That’s pretty darn sleazy. Again, from the Stranger:

VVM isn’t the first company to engage in this practice, referred to by industry watchdogs as “astroturfing.” Companies such as Sony, Microsoft, and Philip Morris have all built fake grassroots campaigns to promote their own products or slam competitors.

“I think [VVM’s] first obligation is to be honest and transparent,” says Kelly McBride, ethics leader at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. “You lose your marketability when you allow people with an agenda to post. And clearly the ad reps have an agenda: They want to make their clients happy.”

McBride adds, “When you create the false impression yourself… that’s really, really bad. It’s inherently dishonest, and I’d think it undermines your credibility.”

So what’s up here? Well, I emailed everyone I could think of at the Weekly and VVM, starting with the top editorial guy, executive editor Mike Lacey, who never returns my calls or emails anyway, but what the hell. I also emailed Executive Vice President Scott Spear, Executive Associate Editor Andy Van De Voorde, Weekly publisher Josh Fromson and Weekly editor Tom Walsh. Only my old pal Andy got back to me; he sent along this link. The argument:

As with any new web product you create or partner with, you give it to your friends and family to test drive

Still seems awfully misleading, especially for a media company that loves to criticize everyone else’s ethics.

Sunshine, at last

-
4

By Tim Redmond

After eight years of brutal secrecy in Washington, including orders from the Justice Department directing agencies to defy Freedom of Information Act requests, this is one of the most refreshing things I’ve ever seen:

In an attempt to deliver on pledges of a transparent government, Obama said he would change the way the federal government interprets the Freedom of Information Act. He said he was directing agencies that vet requests for information to err on the side of making information public — not to look for reasons to legally withhold it — an alteration to the traditional standard of evaluation.

Just because a government agency has the legal power to keep information private does not mean that it should, Obama said. Reporters and public-interest groups often make use of the law to explore how and why government decisions were made; they are often stymied as agencies claim legal exemptions to the law.

“For a long time now, there’s been too much secrecy in this city,” Obama said.

He said the orders he was issuing Wednesday will not “make government as honest and transparent as it needs to be” nor go as far as he would like.

“But these historic measures do mark the beginning of a new era of openness in our country,” Obama said. “And I will, I hope, do something to make government trustworthy in the eyes of the American people, in the days and weeks, months and years to come.”

Perlman withdraws!

-
1

By Tim Redmond

Facing a hearing before the Rules Committee and the strong opposition of preservationists, architect Jonathan Perlman has withdrawn his name from consideration for the Historic Preservation Commission.

His withdrawal letter (to mayoral staffer Michael Yarne), I must say, is one of the greatest acts of whining I’ve seen from a prospective city official in some time. His basic point: I won’t be in the majority and won’t win all the time, so I’m not interested.

Check it out after the jump.

BOS committee assignments

-
0

By Tim Redmond

Board President David Chiu has released the list of committee assignments, which look good — there are three solid progressive votes on the Budget Committee. The winners: David Campos and Ross Mirkarimi both have three good committee assigments. The losers: Sean Elsbernd, who gets only one job. Not sure I would have put him in charge of the school district committee (I’d have put him on budget instead of Carmen Chu), but overall, I don’t think the progressives will have a lot to complain about.

(UPDATE: Elsbernd just called me to say that he had requested not to be on budget because his first child is due in June and he wants to have enough time to spend with his family. “And the biggest issue I hear about these days is education,” he said. He is thrilled with the assignment he got.)

Here’s the rundown:

Budget & Finance
John Avalos, Chair
Ross Mirkarimi, Vice Chair
Carmen Chu, Member
David Campos, Temporary Member
Bevan Dufty, Temporary Member

City Operations & Neighborhood Services
Bevan Dufty, Chair
Chris Daly, Vice Chair
Michela Alioto-Pier, Member

City & School District
Sean Elsbernd, Chair
Bevan Dufty, Vice Chair
John Avalos, Member

Government Audits & Oversight
Ross Mirkarimi, Chair
Eric Mar, Vice Chair
Sophie Maxwell, Member

Land Use & Economic Development
Sophie Maxwell, Chair
Eric Mar, Vice Chair
David Chiu, Member

Public Safety
David Campos, Chair
Ross Mirkarimi, Vice Chair
Michela Alioto-Pier, Member

Rules Committee
Chris Daly, Chair
Carmen Chu, Vice Chair
David Campos, Member

Editor’s Notes

-
0

› Tredmond@sfbg.com

Barack Obama is going to have to be a different kind of president, and I don’t mean just policy or the fact that he’s by far the coolest guy to hold that office in my lifetime. I mean he’s going to have to change the tone of how Americans look at our country. He’s going to have to do something that George Bush (and Bill Clinton before him) never did. He’s going to have to get rid of the selfish baby boomer ethos. He’s going to have to talk about sacrifice.

The economy can’t be fixed with deficit spending alone, and the equally massive environmental issues can’t be fixed with just hybrid cars and wind turbines. All those things are important. Without massive federal spending, probably well beyond what Obama is talking about today, the nation will continue to lose millions of jobs, the recession will become a deep depression, and life around here will really suck. And without new technologies, climate change will continue to get worse and energy will become far more expensive and far less reliable.

But in the end, it’s going to take more.

I was listening to the Democratic response to the governor’s State of the State speech Jan. 15 and the KQED radio host asked Darrell Steinberg, the state Senate president pro tem, the basic question of our time: why do Californians want all these wonderful services — education, parks, roads, trains, etc. — but don’t want to pay for them? Steinberg ducked beautifully, but the question still hangs out there. And it’s not just California.

Let us not forget: the United States is still a very wealthy country, and the Bush years made some of its residents exceptionally rich. I just added up the net worth of the top 20 people on the latest Forbes 400 list, and it came to $433 billion. That’s 20 people. The net profits of the top 10 companies on the Fortune 500 list for 2008 totaled more than $100 billion. That’s 10 companies.

Bush never asked any of those people or corporations to help pay for his war. Instead he told them everything would be easy, and gave them juicy tax cuts.

Obama has to set a different tone. He needs to say, loudly and clearly, that those who have the most (far more than they need) in very tough times should be willing to share.

A one-time, 10 percent wealth tax on the ultra-rich would probably raise half a trillion dollars. A short-term excess profits tax (similar to what the nation enacted during World War II) would provide another huge chunk. And it would send a signal to the rest of the country: this isn’t going to be easy. We all have to help out, starting with those at the top.

It also means that, on every level, we all have to get more engaged, more involved in the community. We have to become a nation of givers, not just takers. Public service has to be more important than private profit.

That’s a tough order for a generation raised on selfishness and greed. But it’s the only way out — and the guy we put in office on a banner of change has to lead the way.

Preserving historic preservation

-
1

By Tim Redmond

While most of us were glued to the inauguration in Washington, a significant battle has been brewing back at home over the city’s new Historic Preservation Commission. The commission was another of former Sup. Aaron Peskin’s parting gifts to the city, approved on the November 2008 ballot. It strengthens the city’s commitment to historic preservation and could become a powerful force against some of the most mindless acts of developers. It could, for example, have the authority to prevent the demolition of affordable rental housing in the name of pricey condos. It will certainly keep the city from allowing developers to bulldoze landmarks.

The mayor gets to appoint members to the panel, and the Board of Supervisors has to confirm those nominees. Most of the people Gavin Newsom has proposed are decent enough. But preservationists are up in arms over the nomination of Jonathan Perlman.

Perlman is an architect, but his critics say he utterly fails to meet the qualifications for the commission (PDF File). He’s well known in preservationist circles as the developer rep who sought to demolish the Harding Theater. The Harding is a historic building designed by the Reid Brothers. According to the organized, active group of Harding supporters:

the theater remains remarkably intact. In fact, the Harding is the most intact of the Reid Brothers theaters in San Francisco and still appears much as it did in the 1920s. The theater retains original seats and the fire curtain dating to the opening of the theater. The entrance, floor and aisle plan, balcony, proscenium arch, stage, and decorative ceiling remain intact, as well as significant plaster detail. The auditorium is unique in retaining an original sense of place from the “pre-talkie” days.

And yet, Perlman tried to argue that the place has little merit and that it was fine to turn it into condos. He wanted that done without even an environmental impact report. The Planning Commission and the supervisors have refused to go along.

Perlman refers to supporters of the Harding, who include the widely respected SF Heritage, as “obstructionists.” But as preservationist David Tornheim notes, “without the opponents’s ‘obstructionist tactics,’ the developer, with Mr. Perlman’s assistance, would have succeed in demolishing a certified historic building without environmental review.”

Peskin is lobbying against the nomination, which makes sense: Perlman’s record put him directly at odds with the intent of the new commission. The Rules Committee votes on this Jan. 22. It ought to be a no-brainer.

Now it’s our turn

-
0

12008obama.jpg

By Tim Redmond

I was in Washington DC on a cold January day in 1981, when a guy named Ronald Reagan took the oath of office. There was no sense of hope; as many people were marching and shouting to denounce the incoming president as to celebrate him. We marched in the counter-inaugural parade, smoked pot in front of the DEA headquarters, partied in a basement with the Yippies … and it wasn’t until the next day that I actually read Reagan’s speech and saw the words that would change everything for many years to come:

“Government isn’t the solution to our problems; government is the problem.”

That was the official attitude in this country for a long, long time. Even under Clinton, you felt as if everyone in Washington was afraid to be promoting the public sector. Everything was about the indivdual, not the collective; everything was about reducing our dependence on each other.

And now, I think, after that attitude has pretty much wrecked the economy, we may be ready to change.

I listened to Obama’s speech with tremendous exicitement. And in some ways, he hit the right notes:

Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.

Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

But the undertone of all of this — the unspoken words in what was a good, but not exceptional speech — went like this:

The era when government was the problem, not the solution, are over.

Now it’s our turn — our turn to prove that it’s okay to believe in the public sector, our turn to prove that it’s fine to think that eveyone has the right to a place to live, the right to a decent income, the right to health care, the right to a minimal standard of living. It’s our turn to show that the United States can be a place where we ask the richest and most successful to contribute their fair share —

not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

Barack Obama isn’t going to do this alone. He may be able to show the way, he may be able to lead us in the right direction, and he’ll certainly support our best intentions. But it’s up to us now. We’ve waited a long time, we’ve worked our asses off and we’re finally in a position to do something. It’s our turn now. Let’s do it right.

Finally, BART police oversight

-
2

By Tim Redmond

It’s taken three deaths, but the BART Board has finally taken the first step toward creating civilian oversight for its 200-member police force. There’s now an actual committee of the board charged with monitoring the cops, and BART Board member Tom Radulovich told us he thinks that the board may actually be ready to start establishing an oversight agency.

I have to say, I love cell phone videos. Best thing that’s ever happened to the BART police. I’ve been calling for civilian oversight for these guys since 1992, and since both of the prior killings we’ve covered happened with no cameras around, BART was able to duck. And since most of the BART Board members were, and are, pretty damn lazy, nothing ever happened.

But now the evidence is clear and obvious, and I hope that the protesters will continue to be vigilant and pressure the board, not just on this one killing but on the structural reforms we need to keep it from happening again.

Newsom’s flip-flop on taxis

-
1

By Tim Redmond

Mayor Gavin Newsom promised in 2007 not to try to undo the system the city uses for allocating taxi permits. Now, he’s doing exactly the opposite.

In an Ocotber 3, 2007 letter to Nathanial Ford, executive director of the city’s Municipal Transportation Agency, and Heidi Machen, director of the Taxi Commission, Newsom outlined his support for a charter amendment that would allow the merger of the taxi panel and the MTA.

But in the face of concern from cab drivers that the measure would be the end of Prop. K, the 1978 law that allows drivers, and only drivers, to use city cab medallions, Newsom wrote: “We are not supportivei of an effort to merge the Taxi industry unless propert guarantees are made to protect Proposition K.”

The letter was also signed by Sup. Aaron Peskin.

So why is the mayor now proposing a measure to privatize the cab medalions, in directly contradiction to the 1978 policy? Wade Crowfoot, Newsom’s liason on transportation issues, tells me:

The Mayor has suggested exploring how to reform the taxi medallion system while preserving the foundations of Prop K. Such reform would involve auctioning medallions with proceeds directed toward enhancing taxi oversight and improving Muni. Importantly, the Mayor has suggested continuing to allow only working drivers to hold the medallions. This provision we believe is the heart of Proposition K– avoiding the the ‘corporatization’ of the medallions and ensuring that the working men and women who drive the cabs possess the medallions. Under this view, tthe auctions of these medallions would be limited to drivers.

Good to hear that he wants to keep the medallions in the hands of drivers — although that’s going to be hard to do when the permits sell for more than $100,000. But in my mind, he’s missing what’s really the heart of Prop. K — the idea that the valuable permits belong to the city.

Peskin doesn’t like what the mayor is doing, either. “My name is on a letter that says we won’t do this, and now Newsom is going back on his promise,” Peskin told me. “I mean, if Newsom and Peskin were both long out of office and somebody else came along and said I’m taking a new look at this, that’s one thing. But this was a widely circulated promise not even two years ago. You can’t do stuff like this.”

UPDATE: I just reached Judge Quentin Kopp, who as a supervisor in 1978 wrote Prop. K. His comment on the mayor’s position:

“That is absolutely not the heart of Proposition K. The intent of that measure was to treat [medallions] as a public asset, with a fee based on the cost of preparing an application. It’s preposterous to say that the heart of Prop. K is anything but that.”

Brown (Willie Brown!) for governor?

-
0

By Tim Redmond

I don’t think so, not really. The former Assembly speaker and SF mayor has never seen himself as a candidate for statewide office. But check out this missive from publicist and person-about-town Lee Houskeeper:

Tonight at PJ Corkery’s memorial in a room full of the usual San Francisco suspects Joe O’Donahue announced that Willie Brown will run for governor. I saw a smile come over his face. After the wake politico’s Don Solem, Annemarie Conroy, Ed Moose, and Warren Hinckle were buzzing that at no time during or after Da Mayor’s moving eulogy for his ghost writer did Willie deny O’Donahue’s statement. He left quickly without comment. . .

Okay, that’s not much of an announcement. But here’s what it is: A backhanded slap at Mayor Newsom.

Brown, who appointed Newsom to the Board of Supervisors and endorsed him for mayor, could have said: Nah, Gavin’s my guy. He could have said, If Dianne Feinstein doesn’t run, Gavin’s my guy. But no; he just smiled.

As if to say: Given the cast of characters, I wish.

Editor’s Notes

-
0

› tredmond@sfbg.com

I guess Mayor Gavin Newsom really wants to cut the budget. He wants to force city employees (and not just the cops) to accept pay cuts. He wants to lay people off and eliminate services. He wants to solve the budget crisis entirely on his terms — and honestly, it baffles me.

Anyone who runs a public or private enterprise has to make tough decisions and tough choices in tough times. I know that. I’ve had to cut spending and lay people off — and I can tell you, it sucked. It didn’t make me feel like a strong leader or a hard-nosed manager, it just made me sad.

In politics, I guess, there’s some advantage to looking like you can stand up to organized labor and the left. Maybe Newsom thinks he can run for governor as the mayor who refused to raise taxes during a budget crisis. Maybe he, like Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, thinks taxes are for girlie men.

But does he really want to preside over the decline of his own signature health care plan? Does he want to be mayor of a city that recovers more slowly from the recession? Does he want to be the environmental leader who cut public transportation funding?

He doesn’t have to do that. There’s another alternative. He can work with the supervisors — and labor, and business, and community activists — and look at ways to bring in some more money. It shouldn’t be that hard a sell, really. The budget gap is huge — Aaron Peskin, who served on the Board of Supervisors for eight years, said before he left office that he’s having a hard time even getting his mind around the monstrosity of the necessary cuts. I’ve been watching local politics for 25 years, and I’ve having a hard time too. We could be looking at eliminating half the discretionary spending in the general fund.

Do people who live and work in this city (including business owners) want to see public health cut by 25 percent? Do they want to see libraries closed, and neighborhood fire stations eliminated, and police stations shut down, and recreation programs that keep kids off the streets eliminated, and the Small Business Assistance Center defunded, and more mentally ill people wandering the streets, and longer waits for more crowded Muni buses? Is this the city we all want to live in?

Or are the wealthier residents and bigger businesses willing to pay just a little bit more each year to keep basic services in place?

If Mayor Newsom, who is still quite popular in town, asked that question, in that fashion, and presented budget cuts that everyone knows are necessary and better oversight and good government programs to let us all know that the money isn’t being wasted, and then promoted a couple of fair and progressive new revenue measures in a June special election, the worst of the bloodbath could be avoided.

I can’t understand why he wants this to be so hard.

1...798081...116Page 80 of 116

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