Reforming the districts: A city task force is now finalizing the supervisorial boundaries that will stand for the next decade.

The new district map will have repercussions for each of the city's 11 districts – and plenty of people are waiting to see if Japantown will end up in District Five or District Two and if District Eight will creep east past Guerrero Street. But the question on the minds of most political junkies has been, will Potrero Hill remain in District 10 or be integrated into District Six?

On April 8 the task force voted to keep Potrero where it is.

The task force is formally charged with weighing new census information, public testimony, and a multitude of federal, state, and local laws. But the process is also a political one – and in this particular case, Mayor Willie Brown's allies were determined to break Potrero off from District 10. The oft-repeated line was that white homeowners in Potrero overwhelm votes from Bayview and Hunters Point. But the added political benefit wasn't hard to spot. Putting Potrero in District Six would pit Sup. Chris Daly (who represents that district) against Sup. Sophie Maxwell (who lives in Potrero Hill and represents District 10). That would give a Brown-backed candidate a better shot in District Six – and also free up the race in District 10.

Public comment was overwhelmingly on the side of keeping Potrero in District 10, and the task force voted 5-4 to keep District 10's northern boundary at 16th Street. The final map must be submitted to the Board of Supervisors April 15. (Tali Woodward)

New teeth for SRO law: Lately Sup. Chris Daly has become something of a punching bag for San Francisco Examiner columnists Warren Hinckle and Frank Gallagher, who seem determined to expose him as a trust-fund baby and a hypocrite. But Daly ran for office promising to represent the city's underserved – and he's clearly made good on that vow.

In December, for example, he helped pass a new law that prevents single-room-occupancy hotel operators from charging tenants visitor fees for overnight guests. Last week he took that legislation a step further with an amendment that would allow the San Francisco Rent Board to impose a fine of up to $1,000 on those who don't comply.

SRO tenants and their advocates applauded the plan at the Board of Supervisors' April 4 Health and Human Services Committee meeting. "Just because you pass a law doesn't mean it's going to get enforced," tenant activist Ron Groshardt said. "There is a real fear of retaliation."

If the amendment passes, tenants will have a legal way to fight back. Daly and fellow committee members Sups. Sophie Maxwell and Mark Leno voted to recommend the legislation, which goes to the full board April 15. (Cassi Feldman)

Waiting game The waiting list to obtain a San Francisco taxi permit, or medallion, just got a little longer. Last week the Board of Permit Appeals upheld a Taxi Commission decision to give John Lazar of the Luxor Cab Co. the right to keep two permits left to him by his father and brother, both deceased.

The decision defied a 1978 law that outlawed the practice of passing on taxi permits to family members, according to critics. Lazar's permits were originally issued before 1978, so Lazar argued they were rightfully his. The United Taxicab Workers petitioned the Board of Permit Appeals, asking it to revisit the commission's action. The UTW said Lazar's permits should have reverted back to the city when his father and brother passed away. Lazar could not be reached by press time.

In the past, taxi medallions could be traded freely as commodities to the highest bidder and were transferable among family members as part of an inheritance. But that meant cab drivers with little or no capital had a slim chance of picking up one of their own. In 1978, Proposition K established the existing, more democratic system. These days a new permit is supposed to become available when a permit holder gives it up, either because the driver can't physically do the job or when a driver dies.

That's why cabbies are grousing about the Taxi Commission decision, which was affirmed last week when the appeals panel refused to take jurisdiction over the case.