November 6, 2002

Hall Monitor

Show us the money: It's no surprise that much of the money raised this election season was aimed at getting voters to pass or fail four of Nov. 5's most contentious ballot initiatives: Propositions D, L, N, and R. Big corporate money – to the tune of at least $4 million [TK update from Rachel] – was collected to defeat or pass those measures, depending on what best suits the interests of the city's biggest businesses. More than $2 million was raised against Prop. D, the energy efficiency-public power measure aimed at giving customers a chance to get away from Pacific Gas and Electric Co.'s electricity monopoly. At least $633,000 was raised to sink Prop. L, which would raise the transfer fee on real estate sales worth more than $1 million so city services to less fortunate residents wouldn't have to be slashed. Then there's Prop. N, Sup. Gavin Newsom's initiative to reduce cash subsidies for the homeless. According to the San Francisco Ethics Commission, Newsom's proposal, considered draconian by many activists, netted $626,343 by Nov. 4. And, finally, Prop. R, which would end rent control on 40 percent of the city's housing units over a 25-year period, garnered at least $563,000 in support. Those are big issues with big socioeconomic ramifications. The outcomes will do much in determining who can afford to stay in the city and under what terms. (By way of comparison, $8.7 million has been spent on all candidates and initiatives so far this year – and that includes the March election.) On another note, many corporate backers gave handsomely to more than one of these four initiatives. PG&E, for example, which singlehandledly accounted for the more than $2 million against Prop. D, chipped in $20,000 to Props. N and R. (Savannah Blackwell)

Promoting on the city's dime: Early in the campaign season, District Four supervisorial candidate Andrew Lee mailed out a postcard to Sunset District residents bearing the city seal and urging folks to attend an Aug. 24 environmental fair put on by Mayor Willie Brown's Office of Neighborhood Services, where Lee has a post as liaison to the city's west side. The move raised some eyebrows, because, according to San Francisco's law governing campaigns, no one is supposed to use city resources to promote a candidate.

Apparently, Lee is at it again. And this time, someone has complained – to the city's Ethics Commission. According to the Oct. 22 complaint, a copy of which was obtained by the Bay Guardian with the understanding the filer would remain anonymous, Lee ran an ad on cable television channel 26 featuring footage from the energy fair, and the voice-over implied that the people wandering around at the event were Lee supporters.

Aside from violating city law, this is "false advertising," the complaint says, because "most people went to the fair to get energy sav[ing] lightbulbs and various items."

Officials at the Ethics Commission said they could not comment on the charges against Lee. For Lee's part, Jeffrey Chen, a member of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission who also happens to be the chair of Lee's campaign committee, told us the candidate had no comment either – since he hasn't seen the complaint yet.

As for the postcard bearing the city's seal, it did not mention specifically that Lee is running for office. But it certainly read like campaign material, quoting Lee: "As the Executive Director of the [San Francisco Neighbors Resource Center – an anti-tenant property owners' group], I have seen how the Westside has often been neglected. As a concerned citizen of the Westside, I will continue to use all my efforts to get the City to provide the Westside with services and resources such as this Environmental Fair." He then told postcard recipients he was "looking forward to personally meeting [them] at the fair." (Blackwell)

Housing the homeless: For years, activists have called for the city to use its surplus property to build housing for those who have none. And now a supervisor is attempting to get into the act. At the San Francisco Board of Supervisor's Oct. 28 meeting, Sup. Chris Daly convinced colleagues to approve an ordinance that would create a centralized database of surplus city property. That way, officials can determine which parcels could be used as places to build units and which could be sold to pay for housing elsewhere in the city. According to Daly, the benefits must go to the homeless. (Blackwell)

Potrero Shocker: Potrero activists were flabbergasted to learn that the city's electricity resources plan has disappeared from the Web. As the Bay Guardian reported Oct. 30, the plan – put together by the SFPUC and the Department of the Environment – was removed from the city's official Web site after representatives from Mirant Corp. complained, at an Oct. 9 California Energy Commission meeting, that the report indicates San Francisco is moving toward "creating a public power empire'' (see "Last Minute Intelligence," 10/30/02).

"The implication is, what does this mean for the [future of] the plan?" asked Bob Boileau, a member of the Potrero Power Plant Citizens Advisory Task Force. "The question is, what is the city's real energy plan?"