Front-runner in recusals
Newsom's conflicts of interest have left him absent on many key votes.

By Savannah Blackwell

SHORTLY AFTER RESTAURATEUR Gavin Newsom took his seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors at the behest of Mayor Willie Brown, legislation came before the board to stop tenants from being evicted by landlords who were eager to collect the high rents ushered in by the dot-com boom.

Sup. Tom Ammiano, allied with the city's tenant organizations, waged an ultimately unsuccessful battle to keep then-supervisor Mabel Teng from hijacking the legislation and putting forward a watered-down, landlord-backed version. Negotiations over Teng's bill were so heated that activists on both sides were carefully tracking each supervisor's position.

But when the supervisors finally passed the legislation, the rookie didn't vote yes or no. Instead, he left the room. Due to his ownership of a piece of South of Market property slated for either commercial or residential development, Newsom recused himself from voting, citing this conflict of interest. Thus, on one of the most important votes to tenants in the late 1990s, Newsom was conspicuous by his absence.

Leaving the room during a critical vote has been a major trend for the mayoral front-runner during his six and a half years on the board. Since 1997, Newsom has recused himself from 152 votes, according to an analysis of board minutes. Of those, 51 dealt with land use and zoning, 20 with housing, and 17 with renters' rights.

In contrast, Ammiano, during the same time period, recused himself 76 times. Sup. Matt Gonzalez, who's been on the board since 2001, has recused himself just five times. (Every board member has at least several recusals; a supervisor is routinely recused when the board must consider whether to appoint him or her to a panel or commission.)

And as Newsom's record shows, on the issues that are of highest concern to the greatest number of San Franciscans – the struggles to find affordable housing, strengthen our rights as tenants, and protect neighborhoods from runaway development – he has not been with us. Thanks to his conflicts of interest, he's stepped out of the room many, many times on votes that affect the lives of city residents.

"The simple fact that he has a conflict of interest on tenants' rights because he's a landlord indicates he will vote against us when he doesn't recuse himself," Ted Gullicksen of the San Francisco Tenants Union told the Bay Guardian. "As mayor he would support any and all measures limiting tenants' rights or restricting rent control."

The mayor, as chief executive, can't be recused from votes and must act on all matters that arrive on the desk of Room 200 in City Hall. Newsom's voting record speaks to the potential conflicts of interest between his personal business dealings and the actions he'll have to take as mayor should he win the race. He has said that he'll place his extensive financial investments in a blind trust – in the same way news wire service magnate Michael Bloomberg did when he became the mayor of New York City. But real estate holdings and development interests can't be handled that way.

"Gavin Newsom has been a renter most of his life," Newsom campaign spokesperson John Shanley said. "His mother was a renter and got evicted. That eviction does make him sensitive to these issues. Can any other candidate say they've had the same experience?"

Shanley said that other than his home, Newsom no longer owns any property in San Francisco, though he still has interest in development ventures.

But Newsom's absence on renters' issues has translated into a lack of input from tenant and housing activists on his key policy proposals. For example, the list of invitees Newsom sought last May to help him formulate housing and land-use policy read like a who's who of downtown and landlord interests. There was no activist Calvin Welch to balance out Emerald Fund developer Oz Erickson, no Gullicksen to counteract Kim Stryker of the rabidly anti-tenants' rights Small Property Owners of San Francisco.

In the epic San Francisco war between neighborhoods and developers, Newsom either doesn't vote or clearly takes big money's side of the land-use debate. At no time was that more clear than in 2000 when the city's progressive and neighborhood activists put a measure on the ballot to protect the city's law limiting the amount of annual new office development. Mayor Brown and downtown forces countered with their own version, aimed at gutting controls on development and leaving the neighborhoods vulnerable.

So where was Newsom? Again, the supervisor walked on an issue that was so important that it brought about a revolution at the Board of Supervisors that November, when voters dumped the mayor's lackeys. Newsom didn't take a position on either proposition. He recused himself on a vote that, thanks to a tanking economy, was largely symbolic of a battle hard won: the new board's spring 2001 moratorium on live-work development, which had caused the rash of displacement and gentrification in the Mission District and other San Francisco neighborhoods.

Newsom has said his inability to vote on tenant and housing issues does not mean he is not supportive of the cause of renters. But the fact is, a recusal has a negative impact. It counts against a vote. Board president Gonzalez – who is also running for mayor – is seeking to change the law so that if an official is recused on a vote, the total vote count would be reduced by one.

Even though Newsom's political ambitions are bankrolled by some of the city and the nation's wealthiest residents, he has built a phenomenally successful campaign around the notion that he represents the interests of average San Franciscans. But his business and real estate dealings have created a voting record that tells a different tale.

E-mail Savannah Blackwell