By Steven T. Jones

GAVIN NEWSOM HAS lots of big plans. He wants to invest in infrastructure, provide new services, cut business taxes, and automate government. So when he came to the Bay Guardian offices Oct. 8 for an endorsement interview, we had a question for him:

How was he going to pay for it all?

"We in San Francisco have a very large bureaucracy," he told us. "We need to slow the rate of growth." How? we asked. Where? And would he consider increasing taxes?

"What I'm trying to do is give you a mosaic," Newsom said, irritation sneaking into his voice. "I want you to read my economic development plan, because we don't have enough time for me to go through it in detailed terms. I want you to read my small-business plan. I want you to read my CitiStat plan. I want you to read my 311 plan. I want you to read my resource development plan."

Newsom was talking about the 21 policy briefs he refers to at just about every campaign stop he makes. "It's all laid out in the plans," Newsom said again during his Nov. 11 debate with challenger Matt Gonzalez. The plans are Newsom's way of demonstrating substance, of showing he has a clear agenda for the city.

"In detail, in writing, so you can hold me accountable for specific plans," he told us at the endorsement interview, handing over a three-ring black binder. "Read them."

So we did. You can, too, at www.gavinnewsom.com/issues.html. And maybe you'll find, like we did, that Newsom does, indeed, offer a bold agenda, with new bureaucracies, New Deal-style increases in infrastructure spending, tax cuts and deregulation for businesses, technology-enhanced government centralization, and many other ideas cribbed from other cities and politicians.

All told, it amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars worth of spending increases. And no matter how hard we looked, how many times we scoured the 140 pages of policy briefs, we couldn't figure out how he was going to pay for any of it (Newsom's campaign required our questions on his agenda be in writing, which we submitted Nov. 13, but we received no responses by press time).

We also noticed something else in studying Newsom's agenda: it's very similar to the "10 Ways to Improve San Francisco" the San Francisco Chronicle editorial page (which endorsed Newsom) laid out Sept. 28 and repeated shortly before the Nov. 4 election. Like the Chron's editorial, the Newsom documents create an agenda that caters to the desires of wealthy individuals and institutions and would consolidate their control over city government.

Both agendas sound the themes of the so-called compassionate conservative – giving free rein to those who control capital and throwing a few new programs in for everyone else, in an effort to be all things to all people. But a more critical analysis reveals the agenda to be deceptive, filled with contradictions and damaging unstated assumptions, and fundamentally at odds with the interests of the average San Franciscan.

Spending imbalance

The Newsom plan doesn't totally ignore the revenue side of the equation. In fact, he devotes an entire three-and-a-half-page policy paper to the topic: "Bringing New Revenue to San Francisco: The Resource Development Office."

Here's what it amounts to: He's going to beg for grants. The new office, consisting of a "senior level" manager and two or three experienced employees, would seek federal and state grant money and funding from philanthropic organizations and corporations. Newsom doesn't want to tax these corporations; instead he would pursue privatization arrangements he labels "strategic relationships" and "public-private-community partnerships" to "ensure that city funds are leveraging as much outside investment as possible."

There are plenty of problems with Newsom's pro-privatization approach (see "Privatizing the Public Agenda," 10/8/97), but let's focus on his plan to fund new programs with grant money, which any fundraiser will tell you has been drying up in recent years and isn't likely to rebound anytime soon.

He's not going to be able to underwrite his agenda with help from Sacramento or Washington, D.C., because most grants can't be used as a general funding source. Matt Paulin, the principal program budget analyst for the California Department of Finance's Local Government Unit, told us that grants must be requested for specific programs, then approved by the legislature as part of the budget process, but that "there's not much money available for anyone right now."

Fundraisers for nonprofits tell a similar story about federal and philanthropic funding during this economic lull. And that's been reflected in San Francisco's budget: "intergovernmental funding" has dropped steadily from 35 percent of the budget in 1995 down to 21 percent this year.

Gonzalez – who proposes getting more money from big business through a gross-receipts tax that exempts the smallest businesses and a transfer tax levied on property valued at more than $2 million – scoffed at Newsom's reliance on grants.

"We are always aggressively doing that, and now's a time when grants are going down, so you'll be treading water at best," Gonzalez said of the Newsom revenue scheme.

Gonzalez proposes new revenues, but he also doesn't come anywhere close to Newsom in costly new spending proposals. Among Newsom's initiatives (with dollar figures where he provides them): "invest in building critical new infrastructure"; a new stadium for the 49ers ($100 million); a 311 call center for city inquiries ($3 million to $10 million); a local earned-income tax credit; new business tax credits, wage and training subsidies, micro-loan programs, and contract bonuses; expanded city support for schools and child care programs; new CitiStat and CompStat computer systems; and two dozen new programs for dealing with the homeless.

Coalition on Homelessness director Paul Boden calls the Newsom homeless proposals "incredibly disingenuous," noting that many duplicate existing services, cut out current providers, ignore the needs and realities on the street, focus disproportionately on the most visible homeless people for political reasons, and create costly, unwieldy new bureaucracies without identifying funding sources (Boden estimates the Newsom plan would cost in the tens of millions of dollars).

Newsom already tried, through his signature Care Not Cash plan, to raid just about the only pool of homeless money available – General Assistance cash grants – and the plan was still projected by city budget analyst Harvey Rose to come up far short on its promise to fund 1,000 housing units, 283 residential drug treatment slots, and 332 detox slots (see "Shelter Shuffle," 4/2/03). Newsom identifies no funding source for his new proposals.

Developing the economy

To be fair, increasing taxes or cutting expenses aren't the only ways to increase city revenues. As Newsom told us during the Oct. 8 meeting, "I believe in a strong tax base. I believe in increasing that tax base."

To that end, the Newsom campaign created the "Building a Strong Local Economy" policy brief. It's the longest one in the package, although some of that is through sheer repetition of vague promises to "direct city agencies to streamline regulations and meet accelerated schedules for approving worthy new public and private projects, without compromising standards."

As in most of the Newsom agenda, the language is bold and ambitious, his basic objectives have a universal appeal, and the specific examples laced through the copy seem to make sense and support his goals ... at least on the surface.

Yet most of the details in the Newsom economic plan come directly from the playbook written by the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, the Committee on Jobs, and other downtown interests.

In fact, the centerpiece of Newsom's argument that deregulation is the key to economic prosperity is a two-year-old chamber study called "Major Projects Ready to Support the San Francisco Economy," which Newsom cites on each of the first two pages of his economy brief.

"The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce reported in 2001 that in excess of $2 billion could be poured into the San Francisco economy and 15,000 jobs created simply by speeding construction of transit, infrastructure, and housing projects already in the pipeline," he writes. "My administration will make it a priority to seize these opportunities to rebuild our city's economy."

Wow! Two billion bucks and 15,000 jobs, just by streamlining the approval process. Yet this chamber "report" turned out to be simply an Excel spreadsheet with a wish list of potential projects attached to vague, unattributed job and revenue figures.

Some of these projects are already underway (Mission Bay, for example), some are problematic ideas that will probably never happen (11,000 new market-rate housing units in industrial areas), some are awaiting state or federal funding (or action, like cleaning up Hunters Point Naval Shipyard or removing the Central Freeway) – and almost none of them are projects that can be moved forward even a little bit by "streamlining" local planning processes.

The policy brief goes on to list five pages' worth of development projects favored by Newsom – including Mission Bay, the Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan, Treasure Island, Bloomingdale's, a new 49ers stadium, the Third Street Light Rail corridor, and waterfront development – most of which were already underway before Newsom ever took elective office. One, the rebuilding of Laguna Honda Hospital, he even voted against as a supervisor.

Yet they are all part of Newsom's plan to "attract private investment through streamlined regulations," which he would help carry out by creating a new Public-Private Transactions Team.

Gonzalez said the public should be wary of such rhetoric, which has long been used by the same big-business and development forces that caused such problems for many San Franciscans in the late '90s.

"With that kind of accelerated growth, you can do a lot of harm to existing communities," Gonzalez told us. "The moment a project is built next to your house, you aren't for streamlining anymore."

While the economy brief gives the broad outlines of Newsom's desire to have city government "facilitate" and "streamline" economic development, it doesn't say how Newsom actually plans to accomplish this.

Luckily, one of Newsom's final policy briefs – "Better Neighborhoods and Better City for Everyone: A Vision of Housing, Transportation and Street Improvements," released Oct. 28 – offers a few more specifics as to exactly what Newsom wants to do to the planning process.

Deep in the document, you learn Newsom wants to get the city's Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors (and thus the public) out of the planning process. It's a stunning proposal that amounts to a repeal of the popular planning reforms instituted by the district-elected board after the excesses of the dot-com era.

The brief starts out in typical Newsom style, with the widely appealing statement "During my term as mayor, we will de-politicize city planning, promote smart growth, and implement innovative best practices for making a livable city."

Newsom acknowledges the excesses of the dot-com era, asking, "How can we manage growth – and meet every San Franciscan's need for decent housing, a good job and a livable city?"

How does he answer that question? Well, for neighborhood representatives and other advocates of carefully planned growth, there are vague promises of "dramatic pedestrian improvements," "dramatic new housing opportunities for San Franciscans of every class," and "citywide and neighborhood planning strategies" that encourage smart growth stalwarts like transit-oriented development and open space.

There aren't too many details about how these "strategies" will be developed, which is too bad considering what Newsom lays out next, the details of how he intends to get "beyond politics." This part reads like a developer's wet dream.

Once the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission develop broad planning strategies, Newsom proposes to remove those political bodies from the bothersome process of actually approving projects. And he wants to make it more difficult for project opponents to appeal projects.

"Give planning staff broader authority to administer project review and approvals thereby dramatically reducing the total number of cases that must appear before the planning commission," Newsom advocates.

Newsom spokesperson John Shanley – who required our questions on Newsom's agenda be in writing, then, four days after receiving them, said they wouldn't have time to answer them – said the diminished planning review would only be "for things like a new deck," but neither he nor the plans say specifically where the line would be drawn on whether to require a commission or board review.

While this idea is buried at the very end of one of his last policy briefs, it would seem to have the most far-reaching impact on city government's most central function: regulating land use. In practice it would severely curtail the ability of city residents to challenge or even question the plans of developers.

"To me, that change would have just the opposite effect of what he says he wants to do," said attorney Dennis Antenore, whom Mayor Willie Brown fired from the Planning Commission for not going along with the mayor's favored projects. "It's those things that are done behind closed doors that the political influence plays out. It's the light of day of a hearing that allows the public to have input."

Setting clear, front-end guidelines and standards is important, he told us, but individual project review is crucial. "All such standards are subject to such a range of interpretations that in the real world, [trusting staff to make decisions in the public interest] doesn't work that way."

What he doesn't say

There's a lot of good stuff in the Newsom agenda, many worthy goals and admirable sentiments. For example, Newsom devotes one paper and parts of others to reforming the disgraceful sole-source contract system and to unbundling large city contracts to make it easier for small businesses to compete.

Newsom wants to improve our parks, take better care of our elderly, support our schools and the arts community, and give cops the tools they need to keep us safe. In his final paper, "Clean Energy, Clear Air," he sets the laudable goal for the city of deriving all its power from clean, renewable sources by the year 2010. Everyone wants those things.

The problem with Newsom's agenda is that it's never quite as good as it sounds on first read. Take his clean energy goal, for example. The casual reader might be impressed that Newsom intends to ensure all San Franciscans are using clean power – but that's not exactly what he's promising. No, he's setting this goal for city government itself, which is more than 80 percent of the way there right now.

Many of his economic arguments are framed in deceptive language designed to leave readers with false impressions. For example, he touts the importance of "investment in critical infrastructure projects," noting they create construction jobs, attract companies that create even more jobs, and "are critical to supporting the distribution of goods and services and the ability of the workforce to reach jobs."

Unfortunately, cities can't deficit-spend like the federal government did when the Works Progress Administration renovated the country's infrastructure and lifted us out of the Great Depression. And Newsom doesn't identify a funding source for this investment.

But he does offer this paragraph: "Investment in infrastructure creates a powerful multiplier effect: according to the San Francisco Center for Economic Development, every dollar spent in local public infrastructure adds an additional $1.50 to the economy, as the money paid for salaries and purchase is 're-spent' to purchase housing, food, clothing, and other goods and services."

So then our investment in infrastructure pays for itself? Well, not exactly. Newsom is right about the multiplier effect – which is why a lot of community activists have long advocated economic development policies that favor locally based small businesses over the large corporations that typically remove profits from the local economy (see "A Small-Business Agenda," 10/1/03). Yet only pennies on the dollar find their way back into government coffers, so Newsom is still going to have to find a way to pay for these projects.

Some of the stuff in Newsom's plan is just flat-out wrong. In his list of economic development projects, Newsom throws around dubious-sounding job- and revenue-generation figures offered by interest groups and project proponents as if they were facts.

"Rebuilding the de Young [museum] is adding $400 million to the San Francisco economy and creating 1,000 jobs," Newsom claims, yet the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco group that supplied these figures couldn't even come close to backing them up in response to our inquiry.

Newsom touts the Bloomingdale's project that broke ground last week as one "expected to generate $14 million in annual tax revenues to the city, as well as $60 million in affordable housing" and 2,300 permanent jobs. Actually, those figures come from a previous version of the project that has since been scaled back (and even under that version, $3.1 million of the $14 million in new revenue was to be diverted back to the developer).

In the latest version, the city gets $6 million in annual tax revenue, $1 million of which comes from the business payroll tax Newsom has criticized and talked about abolishing. Another $3.6 million in incremental property tax increases goes mostly to the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency – one reason why critics say redevelopment is generally good for developers but bad for city finances (see "Railroading Redevelopment," 3/5/97, and "Fixing Redevelopment," 11/17/02) – but the city gets some (redevelopment officials and others connected to the project weren't able to tell us precisely how much).

During his endorsement interview, Newsom chastised us for urging a stronger commitment to affordable housing and tax equity. "I want to deal with reality," he told us. "I don't have the privilege of dealing with the way the world should be."

Whose interests?

Newsom isn't alone. On the stump he never speaks of "my plan." It's always "our plan," and for good reason, considering it was a collaborative effort by the Chamber of Commerce, the Committee on Jobs, and other downtown interests – all of which gets championed on the editorial page of the Chron (page editor John Diaz didn't return our calls for comment).

In fact, Newsom makes no apologies for taking some of his best ideas directly from the chamber, such as his Workforce Housing plan. Although Newsom routinely uses that deceptively named plan as the answer to questions about affordable housing, it's actually aimed at easing the approval process for housing for middle-class families with incomes around $70,000 a year (see "The Branding of Gavin Newsom," 10/29/03).

Both the Newsom and Chron plans give short shrift to creating housing for low-income San Franciscans. Newsom gives it two paragraphs in his "Better Neighborhoods" paper, acknowledging that creating affordable housing "will only be possible with increased public subsidy from San Francisco voters" (ignoring the option of increasing affordable-housing requirements on all development projects) and vaguely promising "to build consensus in the city around the fairest and most cost-effective way to pay for more affordable housing."

The Chron was even more dismissive of this pressing policy need, dispatching this sector with one short paragraph in its "Build More Housing" section: "Then there is the subsidized level of affordable housing for those just above the poverty line. Nearly a dozen community housing organizations are at work in this sector" – before moving on to the need for more middle-class housing.

The agendas of Newsom and the Chron are surprisingly similar, or maybe not so surprisingly. Yet in some respects, the newspaper's agenda is far more ideological than the politician's, and it goes further in a couple areas than Newsom can comfortably go in an election year.

At the top of the paper's agenda is a call, "Streamline the city's government." Sound familiar? Well, the paper takes Newsom's bloated-government points a step further by attacking district supervisorial elections, the 1998 reform that broke the hold of big downtown money over the board and gave each neighborhood a seat at the table.

"There is simply no reason that San Francisco needs 11 people making $112,000 each year to do what cities and counties 10 times the size of San Francisco manage to accomplish with elected boards half the size," the Chron wrote.

The "reason" is representative democracy with full-time advocates, and the second part simply isn't true. Los Angeles has 15 council members making $139,784 each. The city councils in San Diego, Berkeley, Oakland, and Sacramento have nine members each, as well as a strong city manager, which we don't have. And unlike San Francisco – the only California city that is also a county – these other cities are also represented by at least one representative on their respective county boards of supervisors.

The Chron rips the thin veil off Newsom's deregulation plans with the declaration that San Francisco must "stop demonizing business." The paper calls for abolition of the payroll tax, new corporate welfare giveaways, and a change in the city's "attitude toward business, which can only be described as hostile." Beyond just the Chron's obvious self-interest in trying to lower its own tax burden, its position is part of a broad attack on the interests of the average San Franciscan by rich downtown interests and their boy, Gavin Newsom.

Yet Newsom is careful not to sell himself that way. No, he has things like a CitiStat computer system he's importing from Baltimore, which would consolidate departmental data into a single program, monitored by a newly created team in the Mayor's Office.

Why? "CitiStat would enable the city to make better choices based more on data than on politics," a policy brief states. It's as if he wants us to believe that a lack of data was why left-leaning supervisors like Chris Daly, Gonzalez, or Aaron Peskin often differ from Newsom on important policy matters.

"At the end of the day, you have to have the political will to make the decision. Technology can help, but it's not a panacea," Peskin told us. "Information doesn't necessarily lead to change. Politics are what lead to change."

Beyond all its pleasing platitudes, and its gimmicks and gambits and ideas borrowed from centrist mayors of both parties across the country, the Newsom agenda is based on the premise that all city hall needs is a little tinkering, a fresh coat of paint, and a new downtown-backed, Chron-endorsed Democrat in Room 200. And it's based on the idea that the voters will believe they can have all of Newsom's new programs without anyone ever having to pay for them. That might make for nice campaign propaganda – but it's not a realistic way to run a city.

Research assistance by Tali Woodward, Rachel Brahinsky, Savannah Blackwell, Helen Christophi, Niki Woodard, Christy Harrison, and Tara Thirtyacre.