Ass-backward nominees

MAYOR WILLIE BROWN , who just two weeks ago called the local voters "ass-backwards" for electing people who oppose him to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, is trying to do an end run around one of the most important pieces of legislation enacted in years. He's trying to undermine the ability of the district-elected supervisors to oversee the direction of the San Francisco Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals.

Brown is obviously furious that the voters approved Proposition D in March, requiring that the supervisors approve the mayor's appointments to the two crucial land-use agencies. Prop. D was, as Sue Hestor and Calvin Welch point out in the op-ed, a referendum on the mayor's planning policies – and the voters, by a sizable margin, made it clear they wanted a change.

But Brown refused to accept that message. His first round of appointments included some of the same people who had created the problems in the first place – and the supervisors made certain those nominations wouldn't be approved. So the mayor withdrew them and has, in essence, held the planning process hostage for three months by refusing to submit a new slate.

But the latest names he has submitted are, by and large, no better than the first group. There is no reason to believe that any of Brown's latest picks would do anything different than his last planning commissioners did – that is, follow the directions of the mayor and approve every inappropriate project of every developer who gives money to Brown or hires the right lobbyist.

The supervisors should in no way put these nominations on the fast track and should not be afraid to raise extensive questions about the nominees, their backgrounds, and their planning priorities. The supervisors should hold a series of public hearings on the nominations and ask pointed questions, starting with this: Did any of the nominees oppose Proposition L, the community planning measure on the 2000 ballot? If so, why? And have they changed their positions since then? Community activists should be able to raise concerns, too, and to weigh in publicly on the nominations.

And every candidate should have to put forward a current statement of economic interest even before the board opens hearings.

It's already clear to us that Brown has put forward another pro-development group – and that, in the same way President George W. Bush is trying to force the U.S. Senate to approve far-right federal judges, he's using political pressure to keep the supervisors from doing their jobs. The board shouldn't waver for a moment: Prop. D was a public mandate for a policy change on the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals, and if the mayor refuses to present candidates who accept and embrace that change, the supervisors should reject them all.