Tim Redmond

SPORTS: Ron Hunt, baseball’s pincushion, reveals his secrets

0

hunt.jpg

By A.J. Hayes

If anyone can relate to John Mellencamp’s hit “Hurts So Good,” it’s former San Francisco Giants second baseman Ron Hunt.

While some batters hit for power and others hit for average. Hunt just got hit. And hit. And hit. And hit.

During his dozen seasons National League career with the Mets, Giants, Expos and Cardinals, Hunt was tattooed by an incredible 243 pitches.

He was nailed by future Hall of Famers such as Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax and Jim Bunning, as well as journeyman such as Mike Garman, Don Wilson and Bob Priddy.

No matter the hurler’s pedigree, Hunt said the thrown baseballs hurt all the same.

And on just about all of them Hunt had to suppress a grin as he hobbled to first base.

“Heck, getting plunked kept me in the big leagues for 12 seasons,” Hunt, now 67, said at a recent reunion of Giants infielders “I didn’t mind it one bit.”

Obama contingent can’t campaign at Pride

0

obamalgbt.jpg

By Mara Math

An official contingent of Barack Obama supporters will be marching in the Pride Parade next weekend — but they’ve been told not to wear campaign buttons or t-shirts and not to carry campaign signs.

An internal email from Rebecca Prozan, a member of Obama’s national LGBT leadership committee, went out June 15th asking participants in the Obama contingent at this year’s parade to “refrain from wearing campaign-related materials in the march . . . to make sure the parade does not lose funds as a result of our participation.”

That surprised a lot of activists: The parade has always had its share of political campaigns. And some worried that the Obama camp, which has so far refused to support same-sex marriage, wanted to keep its distance from the community.

But the decision actually came from the Pride Foundation, which runs the parade. Pride argues that allowing direct promotion of one particular candidate would interfere with the group’s tax-exempt status and would violate the conditions of a $77,000 annual grant from Grants for the Arts, which administers the city’s hotel tax funds. And because of the group’s tax-exempt status,

In fact, Brendan Behan, Pride’s community mobilization specialist, told us that “Obama contingent participants can wear T-shirts of Obama as a senator from Illinois, but not as a presidential candidate.”
As a nonprofit education group with a 501 c tax exemption, Pride can spend a tiny fraction of its budget on lobbying or campaigning. The city’s rules also prohibit allowing unequal access to any one party or lobbying group.

It’s hard to make the unequal-access point stick, since queer supporters of John McCain could also march in the parade. But Pride Executive Director Lindsey Jones put it this way: “They have equal access to not campaign.”
Jones, who has been at the helm for five years, told us she didn’t recall any active campaigning at the parade. “We only have four years of notes in our records,” she said. “Maybe it’s happened in the past, but we’re all fallible.”

Sup. Tom Ammiano told us that the rules have been in place for years, but people have always found ways around them. “The first time I ran for School Board, we’d made a big school bus and they told us we couldn’t use it because I was a candidate,” he said. “So we made a big fuss and in the end the put us last in the parade.”
In other years, he said, “supporters of a candidate can just march along on the sidewalk. And sometimes they slip in and join you, and it’s not a big deal.”

Attorney Randy Shaw, founder of the nonprofit Tenderloin Housing Clinic, told us he thinks Pride’s stance is misinterpretation of the law: “Clearly, no public funds can go toward sponsoring a political activity. But funds are sponsoring security, bathrooms, publicity, insurance etc.— participants are not being “subsidized.”
In fact, he said, “event organizers have no ability to enforce such a restriction, so it clearly is not covered by city restrictions on the use of public funds.”

Jones disagrees: “When the Obama campaign questioned our guidelines, it was the first time we’d had a significant challenge to those guidelines, so I had people doing research, and the City Attorney affirmed our interpretation.”
“There’s a difference between having a standard guideline that we inform people about, and it’s another whether we follow it,” Jones was quick to add. “It’s not an expectation of Grants for the Arts that we have an entire enforcement squad.”

Prozan has a similar view. “If someone shows up to march in an Obama ’08 shirt,” she told us, “I’m not going to tell them to take it off unless they’re sweating.”

“To me it’s an issue of freedom of speech, what some people would call a Constitutional issue,” says activist Tommi Avicolli Mecca, an original member of Gay Liberation and a queer activist for almost four decades. “This is really discouraging coming from a community that in the past has itself been the victim of attempts to restrict its freedom of speech. Is $77,000 worth selling out for?”

To the question of whether the gain is worth the strain, Jones responds, “It’s the responsibility of the community to make the changes they want to see.” The Parade is 38 years old, she notes, and began as a gathering of 200 people; today, thanks to community demand, it has 20 stages and more than three-quarters of a million attendees.
The Parade has only had Grants for the Arts funding for 10 years. “If we come to feel that we need to forego that $77,000–that’s how Pride changes. Every conversation we have, including this interview, changes Pride.”

She urged those interested to “Pick up the phone and call me.”

You can also email her at info@sfpride.org

Editor’s Notes

0

› tredmond@sfbg.com

Ask any elected Democrat in San Francisco about the governor’s budget, and you’ll get an instant answer: it’s awful. It’s brutal. It sucks. Education, housing, the environment … everything we care about is being gutted because the governor and the Republicans in Sacramento won’t raise taxes.

Which is absolutely correct.

Now ask those same Democrats what they think about Mayor Gavin Newsom’s budget. In too many cases, the answer’s a little slower, and a little softer. Gee, it’s too bad that the economy, and Washington and Sacramento and all of these other forces out of our control leave us no choice but to tighten our belts and do things that none of us really wants to do. Gee, Gavin doesn’t like cutting either, but he has to balance the books. Gee, it’s certainly not the mayor’s fault.

Which is absolutely wrong.

The governor of California is not the only chief executive who can look for revenue solutions to a budget shortfall. The mayor of San Francisco can do that too. In fact, Newsom wouldn’t have to look far: Supervisor Aaron Peskin has introduced two measures that together could bring in a minimum of $30 million per year and, in good years, $80 million or more. That’s about a quarter of the budget deficit, enough to save a whole lot of city services, city jobs, and city resources for the needy.

Both tax measures are aimed at the wealthier end of the spectrum. One would raise the transfer tax on real estate sales of more than $2 million. Few first-time homebuyers would see any impact at all, and the ones who do … well, if you can afford a $2 million house, you can pay a reasonable transfer tax. The biggest revenue would come from major downtown commercial property sales: when the Bank of America Building is sold for $1 billion, none of the investors are paupers and the corporations, real estate investment trusts, and financiers involved have all done quite well under the George W. Bush administration’s tax cuts. This is, for the most part, a tax on the rich.

The second measure would eliminate a loophole in the business tax law that allows some partnerships, like law firms, to avoid payroll taxes. See, if you’re a partner in a firm and you earn "profits" in the form of a partnership payout as opposed to a "salary," then the money you make doesn’t get taxed by the city. Most of these outfits are big firms that can afford to pay the city’s business tax. It’s only fair: companies that don’t operate on the partnership model have to pay taxes, and so should everyone else.

The two measures need a vote of the people, and passing any tax is hard. It would help immensely if the mayor endorsed these progressive taxes — and I guarantee that if a Democratic legislator in Sacramento introduced a statewide tax bill hitting the exact same group of people for the exact same amount of money, Newsom and all his Democratic allies would support it (and if the governor vetoed the bill, those same Democrats would denounce him).

The measures would take effect in the middle of the next budget year, and the income could make Newsom’s river of red ink a good bit smaller. He could, in theory, endorse the measures, work for them, and include the revenue in his proposed budget. But so far Peskin hasn’t heard a word from Newsom’s office on this. Neither have I.

Gavin? Hello? *

The wonderful politics of gay marriage

0

I was listinging to Forum this morning on my way to work and although a few complete idiots called in, most of the talk was about how great it is that California now has legal same-sex marriage. I was struck by one caller who announced, with a kind of bemused confidence, that the protests and acrimony are really old news and will soon by ancient history.

The man, who identified himself as straight and 30 years old, said that when his generation takes control of this country, same-sex marraige will be legal, accepted and no longer an issue at all.

Michael Krasny, the host, pointed out that there are stil some young, religious types who oppose gay marriage, but the called shrugged that off. Sure, there are a few, and there will always be a few bigots and nuts around, but in fact, even the young religious types aren’t as adamant about this issue. When you grow up exposed to something as part of your culture, you come to accept it, the man said.

Yeah, I know, when I was in college I thought that when my generation took control, pot would be legal and war would be outlawed, but this guy is right. The wonderful politics of same-sex marraige is that fact that the battle is over, and we’ve won.

When two 80-year-olds who had fought all their lives for basic human rights and dignity took their vows from a mayor about half a century younger than them, it was both a victory celebration and a passing of the torch. Thanks to older queer pioneers like Lyon and Martin, and the generation that followed them, homosexuality is now a part of mainstream American society. Queers are everywhere, literally — on TV, in the movies, in magazines, in comedy, in popular music, in professional sports, going to high-school proms … and that’s never going to change.

So the religious right can make a last gasp attempt to overturn the Supreme Court decision, but that’s going to fail. The tide has turned.

Oh, no — not BUDWEISER!

0

bud.jpg belgium.jpg sad.jpg

Egads! The company that makes my favorite beer may be taken over by a Belgian brewer!

And sales are down 1.4 percent this year!

I’m sorry, Mr. August Busch IV — I’m drinking as much Bud Light as I can!

How can we allow this timeless icon of America be sold off to the makers of (gasp!) Stella Artois?

Forget the war, the budget, crime and poverty — the is BEER we’re talking about. To the ramparts!

Editor’s Notes

0

› tredmond@sfbg.com

Mark Leno took a huge political gamble this spring, and if he had lost, he would have lost big.

It was hard enough challenging an incumbent state Senator in a Democratic primary (and pissing off a long list of people, some of them powerful and all of them with long memories). But when it became clear that Joe Nation — a centrist (at best) Democrat from Marin — was joining the race, Leno was facing a dramatic challenge.

Imagine if Nation had won. Imagine if a progressive (if sometimes ethically challenged) lesbian from San Francisco had been tossed out of office and replaced with a straight white guy who was pals with the landlords and the insurance industry. The rap on Leno would have been vicious: he would have been the one blamed for losing a San Francisco seat, a queer seat, a progressive seat … it’s not fair, of course, since Carole Migden was the one who made herself vulnerable, but politics often isn’t fair.

And this would have been ugly. I was wincing to think about the comments the next day. Leno’s political career would have been toast. And this is a guy who loves politics, loves holding office. Talk about going all-in.

But Leno pulled it off, putting together a coalition of progressives and moderates and winning convincingly. And his job is only beginning.

Leno has to mend a lot of fences. A lot of people still don’t think he should have taken on Migden, and some of her supporters are going to be bitter for quite a while. Many think his victory empowered the wrong side of the Democratic party: the Gavin Newsom wing, the squishy center. A lot of people (including me) wonder how Leno will come down on the key contested supervisorial races this fall, when Newsom’s forces and the progressives will be fighting — literally — for the future of San Francisco.

If Migden had won, there would be no doubt about the future alignments: people who were with her would be in the game, and people who opposed her would be punished. That’s how she operated, for better and for worse. Leno is different; he’s willing to work with people who opposed him and try to build bridges. He tells us he’s not always going to be with Newsom on local issues and endorsements — and if that’s true, and if he keeps in mind that he needed the progressives to win (and that Newsom’s buddies at Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and the big landlords groups did their best to bump him off) — we may see some fascinating new political coalitions emerging. (We may also see more issues like Propositions G and F, in which Newsom, Leno, and the entire power structure supported the Lennar Corporation’s land grab.)

But first, there’s the Democratic County Central Committee.

The DCCC controls the local party, and the party’s money, and the party’s endorsements, all of which will be critical this fall. The progressive slate organized by Sups. Aaron Peskin and Chris Daly did very well, and now could control the committee.

But Scott Wiener, part of the more moderate wing, is still the party chair. Wiener’s a decent and fair guy, but he likes Plan C (a group that has horrible pro-downtown politics). Someone’s going to run against him. Then we’ll see what side everyone’s on.

Read the Potrero Boosters letter to Newsom opposing the Mirant retrofit (PDF)

JROTC: This is never going to work

0

hkd.jpg
Wouldn’t a martial-arts program be a better option?
(Photo of Master Jung from Koreanmartialarts.com

Okay, I’m all for getting rid of JROTC in the public schools. But I also recognize that there are some kids — about 1,600 — who like the program and get something out of it.

So the School Board has been looking around for an alternative — and I’m sorry, but this is never going to work.

Ethnic studies is a great idea, and ought to be part of the SFUSD curriculum. But the kids and parents who support JROTC aren’t going to see it as a viable alternative. And it’s pretty clear why.

Ethnic studies sounds like a class. JROTC is popular in some circles because it’s not just classroom education. It’s physical activity, it’s fun, it’s leadership development and it has a community-building element. The most popular part of the program, I’m told, is the marching band.

You need something that offers the same sort of attractions, but isn’t a military recruitment tool. And it seems to me there are plenty of options.

School Board members have talked about trying to find a program that feeds into the San Francisco Fire Department or even the Police Department. I don’t love the police option, but hey: Better to get kids interested in law enforcement than in the Army (and it might actually help San Francisco recruit some local people with community roots to be police officers). And a junior firefighter-paramedic program would have all kinds of benefits. The district hasn’t been able to work anything out with those options, though, in part because there’s no existing infrastucture; you can’t send 14-year-olds to the Police Academy, and the city’s paramedic classes are limited to people 18 and older.

But there’s another solution, too — and it seems pretty obvious to me.

San Francisco already has at least 50 good martial-arts schools and clubs that teach kids. I’ve been involved in Tae Kwon Do for almost 20 years, and my son is now a student at the Korean Martial Arts Center , and I can tell you that these classes offer physical fitness, confidence building, leadership development, and create communities and team spirit. You get uniforms. You learn to respect yourself and others. Good programs, and there are plenty around, teach conflict resolution and nonviolence.

And it’s fun and really cool.

Best of all, the infrastructure already exists.

The SFUSD spends $800,000 a year on JROTC. Most martial arts clubs in San Francisco are financially modest operations, and most instructors aren’t in if for the money. Getting a group of local martial arts clubs to set up satellite programs in the schools would be cheap. (The schools already have facilities and insurance, and the uniforms and equipment are — by the standards of what we spend on JROTC — inexpensive.

The kids now get phys ed credit for JROTC — another big attraction — but that’s a stretch anyway, since the state now requires phys ed teachers to have a California teaching certificate and none of the JROTC instructors qualify. Figure out a way around that for martial-arts instructors and you’d have it made.

I called Jane Kim, a school board member who’s on the curriculum committee, and she told me she was a little startled by the Ethnic Studies proposal, too. “We’ve been pushing the district to create an Ethnic Studies plan for a long time now,” she said, “but I was surprised to see that they combined that with replacing JROTC.” She’s a little dubious about this plan, too.

“We’re going to keep the marching band, though,” she said. “That’s a given.”

Which is a start.

Editor’s Notes

0

› tredmond@sfbg.com

I think it’s safe to say that most people in the real estate business tend to oppose raising taxes on real estate. And generally speaking, you don’t find the industry well represented at dinners for urban environmental groups. But John Barry is different. He’s a Sunset District Realtor who is full of ideas about how to get the city more revenue, and after I ran into him at the San Francisco Tomorrow dinner May 21, he sent me a proposal he says would bring in more than $5 million a year.

Barry was digging around in property records recently and learned that a parcel out on 19th Avenue sold a year ago, in June 2007, for $2.5 million — and the new owners still hadn’t received a property tax bill. The owner "most likely won’t be getting the bill until July or later," Barry wrote. "He will then have another 30 to 90 days to come up with his payment."

Although the city will eventually get the money, the late property tax bill means that cash is sitting in a property owner’s bank account, earning interest that ought to go to the city. At the current tax rate of 1.141 percent of market value, which is typically the sale price, the lost interest on this one property is about $2,800. Multiply that times all the commercial and residential sales in the city, and Barry estimates San Francisco is losing some $5 million in interest every single year.

"Who is to blame? All of us," he wrote. "If taxpayers had been raising a fuss, the city would have found ways to do this all quicker."

When property changes hands, it typically goes through a title company and an escrow procedure and, at closing, a bunch of money changes hands. The buyer pays a whole list of fees — to the title company, the broker, the mortgage company, etc. Why can’t the city be in the mix?

Here’s how it could work, Barry suggests: "The title company calls the tax collector and says, ‘We are closing a sale in two days. The sale price is $1 million. Send us an interim estimated tax bill.’ The tax collector multiplies .01141 [the property tax rate] against $1 million and instantly prints an interim bill of $11,410 and e-mails it to the escrow officer."

Makes sense to me.

So the day I got Barry’s e-mail, I called Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting and left him a message saying I’d found him $5 million. He called back right away. I ran Barry’s idea by him, and he told me it was worth pursuing.

It’s a bit more complicated than it seems, he said, particularly with commercial property — which is where the big money is, anyway. In many cases the city doesn’t accept the sales prices as the actual value, and under Proposition 13, you can’t raise a tax bill once you set it. But I have great faith that City Attorney’s Office can figure a way around that.

Of course, Ting has another problem: he doesn’t have the staff to catch up on the existing backlog — and Mayor Gavin Newsom wants to cut his budget. "Nobody wants to stand up and fight to fund the tax man," he told me. That, of course, is lunacy. If you’re short of money, you don’t cut the folks who are bringing it in.

It’s hard to talk about taxing anyone, even in San Francisco. "I write this," Barry said, "because I am a founding member of the How a Realtor Can Commit Professional Suicide Club." But you know he’s right.

Fascinating night — and not all bad at all

0

Well, we got walloped on Props. G and F, but other than that, it’s shaping up as a fascinating night for progressives — and not all bad. The progressive slate nearly swept the DCCC in the 13 Assembly District. Prop. A, the school tax, won handily. Prop. E, the PUC reform, won pretty handily.

And it now appears that Mark Leno’s big gamble paid off and he will be the next state Senator from District 3. And it seems like a decisive victory; with 70 percent of the precincts reporting, he’s got 43 percent of the vote. At lot of progressives backed Carold Migden, and if Leno and Migden has split the vote in a way that gave Joe Nation the seat, Leno would have been blasted as the guy who, by challenging Migden, cost San Francisco and the queer community a state Senate seat.

But he didn’t do that — he pulled together the coalition he needed to defeat Nation.

He now has a huge challenge on his hands: He needs to reach out to the progressives who supported Carole Migden. How he does that (and I think this is something that Leno is good at) will define his career and success over the next few years.

Leno-Nation a see-saw

0

Now Leno’s back ahead with 37 percent of the vote (district wide) to Nation’s 35.8. This one’s going to be close.

In San Francisco, on Election Day, it’s all Migden and Leno in San Francisco, and Leno is way ahead. Leno’s got 62 percent of the San Francisco election-day vote, and Migden has 37 percent. So it’s looking good for Leno, who has to win SF very big.

More City Hall projections

0

So breaking out the absentees, Sandoval is winning 55 percent of the Election Day vote. That should put him in a strong position going into the fall runoff. There’s a third candidate in the race, Mary Mallen, who is at around 14 percent, so the incumbent, Judge Mellon, will get far less than a majority vote, indicating that most of the voters want someone else.

On Prop. A: The election-day results have Prop. A winning by 74 percent. So that should make up for the absentees quite nicely. I think A is now going to win.

City Hall: New results

0

We have about 20 percent of the vote in now, and here’s how it looks:

Prop. A has gone up to 63 percent, and will probably pass.

Sandoval has picked up a bunch, is now at almost 40 percent, and now looks to be coming in first in that race, but not with enough votes to avoid a runoff.

F is still losing, G still winning, and that won’t change.

Joe Nation is now leading Mark Leno — not in San Francisco but district wide. Must be a bunch of north bay precincts reporting, because he’s doing well in SF.

County Central Committee, D 13:
Campos
Chiu
Katz
Peskin
Spanjian
Haaland
Wiener
Mandelman
Walker
Daly
Goldstein
Julian

This is a near-sweep at this point for the Peskin-Daly progressive slate; the only two people winning who weren’t on the slate are Leslie Katz (former supervisor) and Scott Wiener, the DCCC chair. So this is looking very good right now, and could be a bright spot for progressives looking toward the fall supervisorial elections.

City Hall: Projections at this point

0

The early absentees tell us a few things, and Chris Bowman, a GOP consulant who is generally right on his projections, gave us his hit, and here’s how it looks:

Prop. A, the parcel tax for schools, is going to be very close; it’s at 60 percent now and that will be a squeaker.

F and G are over. F lost, G won.

Sandoval may come in first, or at worst a close second, and that race will go to a November runoff.

Prop. E (fuck PG&E) is going to win.

There are some early returns from Marin, and it looks pretty good for Leno — he’s at 31 percent in Marin, with Migden at a low 22.4 and Nation just at 45. So it’s early, but the odds of Leno pulling this out are getting better.

City Hall — correction, Sandoval TRAILING

0

Whoops, read that one wrong. Gerardo Sandoval is at 37.09 and Thomas Mellon is at 48.04, with Mary Mallen at 14.44. So Sandoval is behind. But since his numbers will rise and Mellon’s will fall as the election-day results come in, it looks like a November runoff between the two.

City Hall: DCCC results

0

Remember, these are early absentees, but here’s who’s winning at the DCCC right now in District 13:

Leslie Katz
David Chiu
David Campos
Laura Spanjian
Aaron Peskin
Scott Wiener
Robert Haaland
Rafael Mandelman
Holli Their
Debra Walker
Michael Goldstein
Joe Julian

So far, it’s most incumbents and the progressive “slate” isn’t exactly winning. Chris Daly, for example, hasn’t even made the cut. But the night is young and that will probably change.

City Hall: Absentee results

0

Well, the minute we posted that last entry we got some absentee results — and it looks like Lennar’s money carried the day. Prop. G is winning handily, Prop. F is going down hard.

But there’s fascinating news: Prop. E, the PUC reform measure that PG&E spent a fortune trying to kill, is ahead even in the absentees and will probably win.

Gerardo Sandoval is well ahead in the judicial race, but there may still be a runoff.

Leno is beating Migden handily in the city, and Joe Nation is way behind. That’s good news for Leno, who needs a big win in SF to overcome what will probably be a Nation advantage in the north counties.

City Hall: Props F and G

0

Talking to Jim Stearns, one of the political consultants involved in what now will be the most expensive ballot campaign ever, I got an interesting perspective on G and F. Stearns says all the polling showed the measures moving together — when the campaign pushed Yes on G, the Yes on F vote moved up, too. When they tried to trash Prop. F, the Prop. G vote went down.

So it’s entirely possible that both measures will pass — which will, of course, infuriate Lennar Corp.

City Hall, 7:40: VERY quiet

0

It’s very, very quiet here at City Hall, unusually quiet even for what’s expected to be a low-turnout election. My sources say turnout on the west side of town is very, very low, which might not be such a bad thing …. but overeall, I’m nervous

Come on, vote, dammit

0

The Chronicle reports that turnout so far is really slow. That’s bad for saving rent control (No on 98), stopping Lennar Corp. (no on G), electing a progresive judge (Sandoval) and stopping Joe Nation from becoming the next state Senator.

If you’re reading this, go vote. If you’re not sure where you vote, check here. If you don’t know who to vote for, our recommendations are here

It only takes a few minutes, and your boss has to give you time off if you need it. Go on, head to the polls now.

What the Prop F-Prop. G battle is really about

0

I’ve gotten a lot of calls about the two redevelopment measures, and while I think our endorsements make the case for F and against G pretty well, let me add something else.

In many ways, this is the first of a long series of battles that will determine whether Southeast San Francisco becomes a high-end residential community. That’s what Gavin Newsom wants to see, and it’s what a lot of downtown and big-money forces want to see, and frankly, it’s what the more moderate and conservative political activists want, too.

Because the more rich people you bring into San Francisco, and the more poor and working-class people you drive out, the more likely to are to change the progressive voting patterns of this town and get rid of politicians who want to tax big business and provide public services to the needy.

This is not conspiracy thinking — dontown political strategists talk openly about it. As Calvin Welch likes to say, “Who lives here, votes here.” W e know that; they know that.

I appreciate the fact that labor got some concessions out of the Lennar Corporation . But in the end, even if the labor deal holds up, the numbers are brutal: If Lennar agrees to build about 32 percent affordable housing, that means that 68 percent of the new housing in Bay View Hunters Point will be exclusively for millionaires.

That’s the calculus. A developer promising to build one-third affordable units is also promising that two-thirds of the new housing will be affordable only to the very richest segment of American society, the top tenth of the top tenth, the people who can put down $200,000 cash and pay a mortgage of $6,000 a month on a one-bedroom condo. If two thirds of the next generation of San Franciscans are people with that kind of money, the city will change, dramatically.

Sup. Chris Daly’s call in Prop. F for 50 percent affordable ought to be the absolute minimum floor. Again, that means half the new housing will go to the superrich, and only the superrich.

Lennar says it can’t do the project at that level. I personally think that’s horseshit — remember, they’re getting the land essentially free. But if the best Lennar can do is build housing two-thirds of which is unreachable to the vast majority of the people who make this such a wonderful, diverse and creative city, then we need to send Lennar packing and find someone who can do better.

This is the future of San Francisco, folks. That’s why I’m yes on F and no on G.

The fraudulent slate card

2

Just so it’s clear: The Bay Guardian doesn’t send out slate cards. We don’t do door hangers. We don’t produce campaign mail. Ever. Period.

But just about every election, somebody we endorsed, or some group that agrees with us, reprints the Guardian endorsements, makes fliers out of them and sends or hands them around. That’s fine with me — we’re happy to get the word out. And even if it weren’t fine with me, there’s not a whole lot I could do about it — our endorsements are public, and there’s nothing wrong with senidng around fliers saying the Guardian endorsed these candidates.

And in the 25 years I’ve been working here, I’ve never seen anyone try to do something sleazy like use the Guardian logo to promote a candidate we didn’t actually endorse. Until now.

I’ve just learned that there’s a slate card going around with our logo on it and an endorsement of Carole Migden for state Senate. That’s wrong. We didn’t endorse Migden. We went with Mark Leno. A lot of my progressive friends disagreed with that decision, and I respect their opinions. This was a tough one, and there are good people on both sides. And until today, I was pretty impressed with how both Migden and Leno had been trying to keep the focus on their own strengths, and instead of attacking each other have pointed out that the real danger here is the possibility that Joe Nation will wind up winning.

And then this.

I’ve gotten calls all afternoon about it. Voters are confused; they have a mailer saying we’ve endorsed Leno, and one that appears to say we’ve endorsed Migden. The language on the Migden card is written carefully, and if you read all the fine print, you can figure out that it never actually says the Guardian is backing Migden. But very few people read or get the fine points; they see a slate card with a Guardian logo and a picture of Migden, and they think we endorsed her.

That’s not right. Whatever you think of our endorsements, this is misleading. It’s a trick on the voters, using our name, and I don’t appreciate it.

I called Sup. Chris Daly, who was behind the card, tonight and told him how unhappy I was, and he said he didn’t care. “I’m unhappy, too,” he said. “You endorsed Mark Leno, who is not a progressive.”

Okay, we can argue that forever, but it’s not the point. It’s not cool to use the Guardian logo and (I hope) good name and reputation to confuse the voters.

Again, for anyhone who missed the point: We endorsed Mark Leno for state Senate. One of the reasons we made that decision is that we found Migden’s ethical conduct, particularly when it came to campaign money, highly suspect. We don’t like political sleaze. And this is just the kind of shit we hate to see in the progressive movement.

Our endorsements are here. Use this slate; it’s the real one.

Prop 98 could destroy the next Kerouac

0

By Jen Sullivan Brych

What if Jack Kerouac couldn’t find a cheap place to crash in San Francisco so he could drink at Vesuvio Café and bang on his typewriter? Would he have been forced to remain in the “sanitarium” of San Luis Obispo, as he referred to it? Would he have been forever missing what a biographer called the “feverish intensities” of San Francisco, never inspired to write again?

Even worse, what if the next generation of Kerouacs and Alice Walkers and Michelle Teas can’t afford to live in San Francisco anymore? The frightening Proposition 98 on the June 3 ballot would eliminate all rent control in California. If San Francisco loses rent control, it loses writers and its literary scene.

“If rent control goes, I know I’d lose my apartment soon enough,” said writer Peter Orner via email. Orner wrote The Second Coming of Mavala Shikongo, a finalist for the Los Angeles Times Book Prize and winner of the Bard Fiction Prize. He was also a Finalist for the Pen Hemingway Award for Esther Stories.

Orner has lived in the Mission for about five years. “They’d replace me with an investment banker in about forty seconds,” he said.

So why should people care if writers like Orner leave the city en masse? Richard Florida, University of Toronto business professor and author of the book The Rise of the Creative Class, argues that this group of people is creative, makes good money, and values diversity. The creative class includes writers of all genres, as well as educators, financiers, scientists and techies.

The group is attracted to urban areas like San Francisco, which ranked number one in Florida’s creativity rankings for large cities, because of its theater venues, its cafes and spoken word performances, its rock musicians and art galleries; in other words, because of its writers and artists and the quality of life they provide. Florida argues that cities which are successful in attracting this creative class are prospering, while cities that don’t are not. So, if rent control vanishes and the writers and artists disappear, our city by the Bay will suffer.

Matt Smith loves prop. 98

0

I almost don’t know what to say about Matt Smith’s SF Weekly piece in favor of Prop. 98. I know Smith gets a little unhinged when it comes to housing issues, but his faith in the free market to lower the price of housing in San Francisco – against all odds and all evidence – is just looney.

He starts off with the typical landlord/libertarian argument against rent control, which is that it screws up the marketplace:

Tens of thousands of other apartments are kept off the market through “hoarding,” as individual tenants remain in cheap and cavernous three-bedrooms, hang on to their old $200-a-month apartments long after they’ve moved in with a spouse, or are otherwise motivated to cling to their leases.

Except that Prop. 98 would allow existing tenants to stay in existing rent-controlled apartments, which lose rent control forever when they’re vacated. So the rent-controlled units would be even more valuable, and the incentive to “hoard” even greater. As would be the incentive for landlords to evict long-term tenants.

But wait, there’s more:

Studies also show that rent control discourages construction of new rental apartments New housing construction fell by one third in the seven years after San Francisco’s rent control law passed in 1979. During the 1990s, meanwhile, the number of rental units actually decreased by 7,500.

Ah, but all newly constructed units are exempt from rent control anyway. So something else must be going on here. Perhaps the number of rental units decreased because developers, who care nothing for the city’s housing needs, realized there’s more money to be made selling condos. It’s the same reasons Lennar Corp. broke its promise to build rental housing in Hunters Point: There’s more money in selling units right now than in renting them.

And, of course, we’re losing rental housing – not to rent control but to condo conversions, another way property owners can make money.

Smith seems to think that without rent control

“it’s reasonable to surmise … that downtown apartment construction would accelerate. Rents would stabilize or decline. …. Businesses would flock to San Francisco, which would have ample new office space and more, cheaper homes for their employees.”

Sounds idyllic, if you want to live in Manhattan, which I don’t.

In fact, Matt Smith’s vision of a “great city” is by nature one that’s constantly growing and ever-more dense. He berates the urban environmentalists:

San Franciscans replaced what had been a metropolitan vision of the future with one best described as suburban. Rather than being a great city, it would instead be a tranquil place to live.

Matt, you have no sense of history. After World War II, the captains of industry who had completely taken over planning and development policy, in the military model of command and control, to make the West Coast war machine work, decided they liked that way of doing business. So a handful of them sat down and planned the future of the Bay Area. Low-cost South of Market housing would be demolished to make way for hotels and a convention center. Following the suburban model, BART would connect outlying bedroom communities with a dense downtown office core. High-rise buildings would hold the economic center of the Pacific Rim. A network of freeways would cross the city in a Los Angeles-style grid.

That’s what the master planners who Smith lauds had in mind. And the people who lived here decided that it wasn’t fair that nobody asked them about it. So they fought back, cutting off the freeways, down-zoning neighborhoods, fighting over-development (which, by the way, hurts city coffers more than it helps) and trying to keep this a decent place to live.

Rapid growth is not always good, not always desirable. Cities are places where people live, and keeping them livable is a noble pursuit.

And when it comes to housing in a city like San Francisco, the market will never, ever solve the problem. I’ve written about this over and over, but here’s the latest.

Regulation – treating housing not just like a fungible commodity but like a necessity of life that the market can’t fairly provide – is the only way to keep San Francisco affordable.

Is growth good?

0

› tredmond@sfbg.com

I heard one of the greatest environmental writers in San Francisco history speak last week, and his message was a bit different from what environmentalists are taught to believe today.

Harold Gilliam was born almost 90 years ago, and was writing influential articles and books about the Bay Area — and the urban environment — long before most of today’s activists were born. He was an opponent of nuclear energy in the 1950s when most of California, including his employer, the San Francisco Chronicle, thought this wonder of postwar technology would provide power that was "dependable, safe, and too cheap to meter." He was against developers filling in the Bay in the early 1960s. He was writing about the problems with freeways when that was heresy. When I first arrived in San Francisco in 1982, I was amazed that the Chronicle would print some of the stuff he was saying. The guy is a genius and a local treasure.

And at the annual San Francisco Tomorrow dinner, where he was honored with the Jack Morrison Career Achievement Award, he had a few things to say.

After a brief talk about his early career (and giving thanks to his editors for allowing him to infuriate Chronicle publishers), he told us he wanted to challenge conventional wisdom for a moment.

He talked a bit about the Transbay Terminal project, which he said would be a wonderful, crucial part of the city, a transportation hub for the future and maybe someday the home of a fast train to Los Angeles. Then he asked if the price was worth it.

Since nobody in California wants to pay taxes, the only way to fund this kind of grand civic project these days is to sell off the skyline, to let developers build giant high-rise towers that make the city more congested, more rich, and less pleasant. A lot of people think tall buildings mean progress; even a lot of environmentalists think building up is good. "And I remember," Gilliam said, "when everyone thought filling in the Bay was the way to grow."

Actually, Gilliam said, we all ought to question for a second whether growth is always good, or if it’s worth the cost.

Something to think about.