Liquor stores vs. superstores: Salem Mufarreh, owner of Fulton Food, isn't worried about being put out of business when an Albertsons supermarket opens a block away from his Western Addition store in June. Fulton Food has been open since 1910, he said, long before either Albertsons or its predecessor, Falletti Finer Foods, were on the scene. What bothers him is that Albertsons seems to be cruising toward a liquor license, which small proprietors often have to struggle for.

Besides, he asked, "What do we need an extra license for?" By Mufarreh's count, there are already 15 establishments with liquor licenses in the immediate vicinity, including his own. At an April 11 Board of Supervisors hearing, he and several neighbors spoke against Albertsons application for a license that would allow alcohol sales from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., the hours the store is open. Instead, they argued, the supermarket should be held to the same hours as the many businesses it displaced in 1999 (see "Emerald City," 3/31/99).

At the helm of this fight is David Tornheim, who helped found Central City Progressives, a political group that opposes chain stores on principle. "All over the country, corporations are taking over, and everything looks the same," he said. "A bunch of us felt like even if we weren't going to get exactly what we wanted, we had to do something."

Normally, local government would have no say in the matter, because liquor licenses are handled by the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Because the area around the store is considered high-crime, however, the Board of Supervisors gets to weigh in on the license. In this case, they sided with the San Francisco Police Department and recommended approval, despite the neighbors' concerns.

Tornheim isn't giving up. He told us he sees the issue as much broader than one liquor license, and he may take his concerns to court. "We're not necessarily in it just to win," he said, "but to bring this to people's attention and make them aware that they can actually step up to a big corporation and ask for what they want." (Cassi Feldman)

That's live and work: It's tempting to call it too little, too late, but you can't blame the current supervisors for the blatant exploitation of the live-work law that occurred before many of them were elected. And since district elections put this board in place, it has made a concerted effort to stop developers from erecting those hulking (not to mention inefficient) structures all over town. The most recent effort? On April 8 the board voted to clarify in the Planning Code that live-works must integrate residential space with work space in the same units. In other words, a couple of condos atop several Internet offices doesn't count. Only Sup. Tony Hall voted no; Sup. Gavin Newsom was excused. Unsurprisingly, the loft-loving Planning Commission had recommended against the change. (Tali Woodward)

Union wins, teens lose: The Board of Supervisors voted April 15 to approve a Department of Human Services request that teen parents on welfare be case-managed by the city instead of by the Family Service Agency of San Francisco, a local nonprofit. Although DHS head Trent Rhorer said the teens would be better served by the city, he also admitted that the push stemmed mostly from employees' concerns rather than clients' complaints [see "TAPPed Out," 4/10/02].

Sup. Chris Daly argues that the two are connected. "The [labor] dispute has negatively impacted the quality of service to the teens who rely on the program," Daly wrote in an April 4 letter urging his colleagues to support the proposal. But Daly neglected to mention that the disgruntled employees are in the minority; several FSA/SF staff members and scores of other service providers are opposed to the plan.

Some speculate that the supervisors were simply scared to stand up to the powerful Service Employees International Union Local 790. Before the hearing, union representatives were out in full force trying to sway the supervisors.

Ultimately only Sups. Matt Gonzalez and Aaron Peskin voted against the amendment. "What's going on here isn't really within the purview of the Board of Supervisors," Peskin said, discussing a proposed continuance. "This is the government putting pressure on an organization to unionize." (Feldman and Woodward)

In other business: The board passed legislation from Daly on April 15 that will close several loopholes in the city's rent ordinance – and make it harder for landlords to clear units using the state's Ellis Act. In some cases, landlords who flout the new rules will be subject to criminal charges.

Also on April 15, Peskin and Sup. Jake McGoldrick introduced an 82-page law designed to improve the collection of impact fees owed by developers for child care, housing, and transit. The Planning Department has been criticized for lax enforcement of the fee program; under Peskin and McGoldrick's proposal those fees would be collected by the treasurer, who would also have more power to force timely payment.