Reforming the Port

EDITORIAL

The Mills project, that awful waterfront mall that would turn Piers 27 through 31 into an office park and shopping complex, seems to have sunk back into the political and financial ooze from which it came. But the fate of that part of the northern waterfront is still unclear — and there are indications that some sort of backroom deal is in the works to let some other developer take over the project without a public bidding process.

That's a scary thought — and an indication of why Sup. Aaron Peskin's move to reform the Port Commission makes sense.

Last month, in official filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Mills announced that it was writing off its entire $30 million investment in the project. The Virginia-based developer has nobody else to blame: The project was financially dubious from the start, based on projections so rosy they bordered on fantasy. The clumsy attempts to make the shopping center look like a public "recreation" facility (mostly through a dubious deal with the YMCA) and the heavy-handed political tactics Mills employed wound up backfiring, and the supervisors and port officials made it clear the project was going nowhere.

But both the San Francisco Business Times and the San Francisco Chronicle's Matier and Ross have now reported that Mills wants to sell development rights on the site to either the Shorenstein Company or the New York City–based Chelsea Piers. The problem is that Mills has no real rights on the piers at all; the only legal entitlement the company ever had was the exclusive right to negotiate a development deal, and that expires March 31.

So Mills actually has nothing of value to sell — unless there's some sort of quiet deal going on to ease a new developer onto the site and start talks on a new project, without formal bids or public discussion. That's an alarming prospect, and the port needs to make a clear public statement that there will be no transfer of any rights on Piers 27 through 31 and that the current Mills agreement will be allowed to expire. At that point the entire process needs to start over, from step one.

Peskin, who led the battle against Mills, has proposed a charter amendment that would overhaul the Port Commission, a powerful (if low-profile) body that controls some of the most valuable real estate in the city. The Peskin plan: Expand the commission from five to seven members, and mandate that all of them have specific experience in either maritime, labor, or environmental work. That's a good start — port commissioners in the past have too often been political hacks with no valid claim to the job.

But Peskin's plan would still let the mayor appoint the entire commission, which undermines the basic idea of political accountability. The moves over the past few years to give the district-elected supervisors direct appointments to key agencies like the police and planning commissions have helped keep those panels from being mayoral rubber stamps; why not add the port to that list?

The Peskin proposal needs a little work, but the idea — to make sure another Mills Project never makes it through the Port Commission — is exactly on track. *