Shut down CYA

Thanks for running "Our Own Abu Ghraib" – it's got people thinking and talking [5/26/04]. But we need to give them something to do as well. One thing the article didn't mention is the Ella Baker Center's statewide campaign to close California Youth Authority prisons. As with the entire prison-industrial complex in the U.S., many abuses comparable to Abu Ghraib are routine at CYA prisons – the added horror is that these things are done to children, and that the mandate of these youth prisons is to rehabilitate these young people. The recidivism rate at CYA facilities is over 90 percent, and an additional 3 to 4 percent simply die or are killed before they return. Recently, two youths were found hanged in their cell. Before that, several guards were caught on videotape brutally beating a handcuffed, prone youth (a member of the state legislature released this tape to the press). While Rumsfeld and Bush assure the American public that the persons responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib will be brought to justice, California attorney general Bill Lockyer refuses to prosecute these CYA guards. The state of Missouri replaced its youth prison system with rehabilitation centers and therapeutic programs, and their recidivism rate is 80 percent less as a result! New Zealand is also getting wise. Bay Area residents who want to do something immediately about this widespread abuse should join the campaign to shut down CYA prisons (www.ellabakercenter.org).

Mary Bull Greenwood
Earth Alliance
San Francisco

Supporting Sophie

It seems that the people trying to recall Sophie Maxwell can't get their stories straight ["Looking for a Leader," 6/2/04]. Case in point is the Home Depot mentioned in Lee Hubbard's article. A few weeks ago I got an e-mail with some of the reasons these people are calling for the recall. Her alleged support of "Home Depot and other Multinational Corporations" was prominent on the list of complaints. Now we hear that the problem is that she actually helped stop the Visitacion Valley Home Depot. Their other complaints are equally as convoluted or mistaken.

Alex Lantsberg
San Francisco

Fighting Newsom's agenda

I keep hearing that Mayor Gavin Newsom will probably get his way on two key issues currently being proposed in City Hall, namely his $185 million housing bond for the November ballot, and the (F.Y.) 2004-05 city budget. But how can we, the so-called progressive community, allow this to happen?

Under Newsom's proposed housing bond, $135 million will go to supportive housing for the homeless and very low-income, and to affordable rental housing for families and seniors. But an extra $50 million would subsidize potential homebuyers who earn up to $99,000 (105 percent of the average median income). $50 million would be allocated to people who can currently afford to live comfortably in this city! I'm not crazy about bonds, because they are regressive. But this housing bond could prove vital in addressing the housing crisis currently facing the city's neediest residents, as well as the city's growing homelessness problem. Why must we get permission from Westside homeowners so that Eastside renters may gain access to a dignified place to live?

Furthermore, San Franciscans, including members of the Board of Supervisors, should be outraged that this year's budget is once again balanced on the backs of the city's poor and working class. Newsom is misleading when he claims that his proposed budget will cause minor inconveniences and shared, but manageable, pain for all. Approximately $190 million of the budget cuts, about 61 percent of the total cuts, come from reductions, department operating cuts, and cuts to employee retirement contributions. This means that all the neighborhood clinics are being cut and the homeless, poor, and immigrants will lose access to life-and-death services. The city will put medical care to jail inmates out to bid, which will bring about competitive bidding of contracts between the Department of Public Health and private companies. City workers are losing their jobs at a frightening rate. The city's social safety net is being downsized, and the lives of San Francisco's most vulnerable are being devastated.

On the other hand, Newsom proposes tax increases, namely in the form of a gross receipts tax for larger businesses, consisting of $25 million, or 8.1 percent of the revenue necessary to address the deficit. I'm not a mathematician, but it is clear to me that San Francisco's wealthiest are carrying much less of the burden in Newsom's budget proposal. During a time of crisis, more than ever, we should be discussing viable revenue options such as a general transit assessment fee and a challenge to PG&E's franchise tax fee, which is grossly outdated.

Renee Saucedo
Director, San Francisco Day Labor Program and candidate for supervisor, District Nine
San Francisco