You might think the Web site of San Francisco's Office of Contract Administration is the wrong place for a reporter to go hunting for story ideas. You're wrong. Look at this gem. The Laguna Honda Hospital is competitively bidding out the task of brush clearing and lawn mowing. But the job won't go to some landscaping outfit you're imagining, one with a truck full of big sweaty guys wearing sleeveless shirts and washing down 7-11 hot dogs with hilariously large refill cups of Mountain Dew. The city wants a professional goatherder to take care of it. Sounds brilliant ecologically, but just reading the bid documents, it was still hard to see it the first time without spitting our afternoon coffee all over the monitor. Do you have several goats available for the city to use, perhaps left over from a failed indie horror flick? Are you looking to make some extra money on the side? Are you prepared to accept that the City and County of San Francisco can't be held responsible if your goats are stolen and/or damaged? Then you're in luck. Here's the description:

7/29/2008 Bid Number/Type: ITSF09000054/MQ SVC-Landscaping/Maint

Clear brush, shrubs, plants, weeds from 22 acres of property at Laguna Honda Hospital, 375 Laguna Honda Blvd. Clearing must be performed by goats and supervised by goatherders who will stay on site with the goats to monitor cutting activity, moving fences and goats. This price to include all transportation, fencing, monitoring, herders, and all other charges pertaining to proper care and handling of these animals. The city to be held harmless for any loss of goats, theft or otherwise.

Faced with an overdue state budget that is simply not going to be balanced by spending cuts alone, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has commendably reversed his longtime pledge of "no new taxes." Unfortunately, he did so by choosing the most regressive form of taxes: a one-cent sales tax hike that would hit the poor far harder than the rich.
Compare that to the budget plan worked out in the California Assembly (with the help of our own Assembly member Mark Leno), which Leno said would "restore $8 billion in the most draconian cuts that the governor proposed." How? By increasing income taxes on the wealthiest Californians, a plan that would raise about $8.2 billion per year, roughly double what the governor's sales tax proposal would bring in.
So the Democrats want to tax the rich (who would write the increase off of their federal income taxes anyway and end up paying about the same) and Schwarzenegger wants to tax the poor. But it all may be a moot point considering it takes a few GOP legislators to reach the two-third threshold for passing a budget and all the Republican legislators have signed on to an inane "no new taxes" pledge, apparently content to just starve state government.
Stay tuned...

Nice piece in the BAR by Matthew Bajko about PG&E's efforts to make nice to the queer community -- just as the company faces a huge battle over a Clean Energy Act that could lead to public power.

There's no question that PG&E needs to do some work buffing its popularity in the LGBT community, particularly after funding a homophobic mailer attacking Assemblymember Mark Leno.

"I think in addition to greenwashing, PG&E is now engaged in gay-washing, given their inappropriate attacks on Assemblyman Mark Leno," Davis told the Bay Area Reporter last week. "I think there is pretty resounding resentment in the gay community for PG&E's tactics. It is kind of obvious they are trying now to court favor in a community they offended with their unsavory tactics."

I think Leno has another good point: PG&E is going to spend maybe $10 million fighting the Clean Energy Act -- and is giving all of $250,000 to support same-sex marriage:

"I would think our community might feel we have been significantly shorted by their $250,000 contribution," said Leno.

We'll see more of this -- PG&E giving money to environmental groups, PG&E giving money to neighborhood groups and nonprofits, PG&E giving money to politicians .... whatever it takes to buy favor for a corrupt utility that can't even make the basic state goals for renewable generation.

Serpentinite is California's state rock. It can contain naturally-occuring asbestos.

Shipyard artist Jack Hain says he just wants his rocks back. Serpentinite rocks, that is.
And getting these rocks back appears to be the crux of the case that Hain has filed in Superior Court against Lennar. That and the question of whether it's OK to move materials from one part of shipyard to another.

But unlike the other shipyard-related cases involving Lennar, Hain isn’t worried about possible health risks from the serpentinite, which can contain naturally-occuring asbestos.

Veins of chrysotile, or other members of the asbestos family, can run through serpentinite rock, making it a toxic health hazard, if crushed, dug or otherwise quarried and excavated.

That’s because, says Hain, he wasn’t crushing or grading the rocks, but simply moving them across the yard.

Hain sued Lennar Communities and Lennar BVHP on May 15, 2008 in Superior Court, a month before residents sued the developer and two of its shipyard subcontractors, CH2M Hill and Gordon N. Ball, and five weeks before Lennar sued one of its subcontractors, CH2M Hill, for failure to monitor and control asbestos dust.

But unlike those suits, which center around Lennar’s failure to protect the community from naturally-occurring asbestos, while digging into a hillside full of serpentinite, Hain’s suit centers around the fact that Lennar removed three serpentinite rocks from an art work that Hain was building outside his studio in Building 116 on Parcel B of the Shipyard. (That's the parcel where the Navy is currently proposing revisions to its original plan for radiological, soil and groundwater clean up.)

Map of areas under radiologically investigation at Hunters Point Shipyard.

OK, fine. I'm sorry, but I had to. The thing that hurts is that I'm actually weighing voting for her after the past week ... once I finish this Glamour.

But the real question is: When will Britney respond?

The Mayor’s Office of Housing has come under attack for failing to construct enough inclusionary affordable housing units and for not doing enough financially to help folks facing foreclosures.

Map of SF foreclosures, as of December 2007.

The charges come as D 11 Sup. Geraldo Sandoval and D 6 Sup. Chris Daly seek to amend off-site inclusionary affordable housing requirements.

The amendments would allow that twenty-five percent off off-site units may be built outside the currently required one-mile radius from a developer’s market rate project.

They would also provide that off-site units cannot be located in industrially-zoned areas, or within one-quarter of a mile of developments containing 200 or more publicly-owned and operated affordable housing developments.

“The fact that not one affordable housing development has been promoted by the Mayor’s Office of Housing or the non-profit sector, in District 11 tells me that something is wrong,” said Sandoval, whose district includes the Outer Mission and the Excelsior and is home to the highest foreclosure rate in the City.

Sandoval noted that when he proposed an emergency fund last year to fight foreclosures, MOH opposed the idea.

“That program went nowhere,” Sandoval observed.
“And every time I have tried to get a non-profit housing developer into District 11, they do not and have not got any help from the Mayor’s Office of Housing,” he added.

Noting that the proposed amendment also amounts to a small program (Twenty-five percent of a 25 percent mandate is a small subset,) Sandoval said, “I can’t understand why the Mayor’s Office of Housing is so eager to oppose it. This is about fairness.”

MOH’s Doug Shoemaker countered that the amendments are “a solution in search of a problem.”

Shoemaker reminded the Board why the supervisors updated inclusionary affordable housing legislation a few years ago to make sure that offsite units were built within a one- mile of developers’ market rate sites.

“It was because affordable units were being built where no one wanted it, under freeways, the far end of city, and remote from retail, services and transportation,” Shoemaker recalled.

“Our main concern,” he said, “is that development will end up being built under the cloverleaf of 101 and 280. Developers seek lowest land prices. They are rational. They seek cost savings.”

Sup. Maxwell sided with Shoemaker, noting that the legislation that Daly and Sandoval seek to amend was put together less than 18 months ago.

“The poorest people need to be where the infrastructure and schools are,” Maxwell said.

Sup. Tom Ammiano also opposed the amendments.
“It takes away a lot of the choices we have,” he said

But Sup. Bevan Dufty supported Daly and Sandoval’s efforts, noting that he’s been seeking more affordable housing in his district in the last years, with almost no success.

“To me this is not a mandate that 25 percent [of these affordable units] has to be a mile away.” Dufty said.

Claiming that if developers proposed inaccessible offsite units, the Board would not support it, Dufty added, “But a little bit of flexibility isn’t a bad thing.”

“This is such a modest proposal. I can’t believe we’re denying it,” Sandoval lashed out.

Sandoval observed that thanks to the MOH opposition to the Board’s proposed $2 million revolving foreclosure fund, all the City has, on the foreclosure front, is a task force and a comprehensive report.
“That’s not the same thing as helping people, “ he said. “If this passes, we might be able to.”

MOH contends it's been busy trying to put infrastructure in place, so it can help people access the federal foreclosure package that President Bush just signed into law.

Nationwide foreclosure rate "heat" map.

In the end, the Board kicked Sandoval and Daly’s amendments back to committee.

“Perhaps some massaging is in order,” Daly acknowledged.

That was my first thought, sprawled on the pavement in the middle of a northbound lane on Van Ness Avenue: is this the city’s fault? Shouldn’t there be a goddamn bike lane here by now? And is the belated CEQA study that's stalling the city Bike Plan the real antagonist here?

Here’s what happened: I was leaving a public meeting at 25 Van Ness and heading toward City Hall, just a few blocks north. The most expeditious route is to stay on Van Ness, which is horribly unfriendly to bikes, full of fast cars and funky pavement – but I was only going a couple blocks. I was riding in the far right line, but had to move out into the second lane to get around a bus stop. That left me straddling the white line between the two lanes. The pavement here, I’ll remind you, is full of potholes and cracks that like to grab the skinny, slick tires on my Univega. I swerved right, around one of these cracks, just as a car decided to accelerate past me in that right lane. The side of the car hit the side of me and we dragged along together for several yards until it passed me and I collapsed on the pavement. Fortunately, traffic behind us stopped, as did the driver of the car that hit me.

Despite exploding immediately into tears, which I’m prone to do when bitchslapped by death...

Fromson tries the Sgt. Schultz defense

By Tim Redmond

The publisher of the SF Weekly, who harshly criticized the professional qualifications of his Bay Guardian counterpart during our predatory-pricing trial, said yesterday under oath that he knows almost nothing about his business.

Josh Fromson testified in a sworn deposition as part of the Guardian’s efforts to collect on the $17 million that the Weekly and its parent company, Village Voice Media, owe us after a jury verdict in a five-week trial.

Guardian attorney Robert Pollak was attempting to find out where the company’s resources are. The so-called debtor’s exam is a common procedure in civil cases, and the company that owes the money is supposed to provide honest information about its finances.

Fromson provided almost nothing. In fact, if the Weekly’s top local executive, who claims to run everything except the editorial department at the paper, was telling the truth, he is astonishingly lax in his understanding of his job.

Fromson testified that he was responsible for all of the business activities of the Weekly, that he oversaw everything except editorial. That’s typical for a newspaper publisher.

But from then on, his answers were – to be kind – a bit hard to believe.

Fromson started off by saying that he didn’t know who his boss worked for.

He said his immediate supervisor was Jim Larkin, who is listed on the Weekly’s masthead as the chief executive officer of Village Voice Media. Nowhere in any of the thousands of pages of lawsuit documents was there any suggestion that Larkin was anything but a VVM employee, and to my knowledge nobody at VVM has ever suggested that either.

When Fromson was asked, almost as a matter of course and for the record, who Larkin’s employer was, he said:

“I don’t know.”

That became a refrain in a deposition that Fromson clearly didn’t take seriously. He spent much of it leaning back in his chair and chewing gum.

And by the end, it became clear that Fromson – again, if he’s telling the truth – doesn’t know whether his company owns or leases its office equipmemt, doesn’t know what bank his company uses for its accounts (although he signs the checks), doesn’t know what his weekly expenses are, doesn’t know whether there’s enough money in the bank to cover the checks he signs, doesn’t know who the paper owes money to, doesn’t know who deposits the checks the Weekly gets from its advertisers, doesn’t know whether any records of those deposits exist or where they are … in short, he doesn’t know any of the basic financial information that the publisher of any newspaper I’ve ever heard of is responsible for knowing.

Some examples of Fromson’s purported ignorance:

Pollak asked him if he knew what type of corporate form the SF Weekly took.

“I don’t know,” he said. (That’s pretty lame, considering that the Weekly’s corporate structure was laid out in detail in the lawsuit.)

Pollak asked whether the Weekly owned the desks, chairs, computers and other equipment in the office.

“I don’t know,” Fromson said.

“Who would know that?” Pollak asked. “I don’t know right off hand,” Fromson said.

Pollak asked what happens to the money that the Weekly collects from its advertisers (does it get deposited in a bank account, for example?).

Fromson: “I don’t know.”

What bank does the SF Weekly use for its accounts?

“I don’t know.”

When you sign the rent check each month, what bank is it drawn on?

“I don’t pay attention.”

What are your average expenses each week?

“I don’t know.”

What bank account are the operating expenses paid through?

“I don’t know.”

Who decides which bills get paid and when?

“I don’t know.”

Pollak asked for documents showing deposits in bank accounts. Fromson said they don’t exist. He asked if Fromson ever checked the balance in the company’s account; Fromson said he didn’t. “When you write a check,” Pollak asked, “how do you know there’s money in the account?”

Fromson: “I don’t.”

When clients send checks to the SF Weekly, Pollak asked, who takes the deposit to the bank?

“I don’t know.”

When that person gets a receipt for the deposit, where is that filed?

“I don’t know.”

You get the picture.

During the trial, Fromson took the stand and launched a harsh attack on Guardian co-publisher Jean Dibble, who oversees the paper’s finances, saying she didn’t go out on sales calls (which he was proud to say he does).

But after today, I have to wonder:

Can a sophisticated operation like VVM really have a publisher who doesn’t know which bank he uses, who doesn’t know if there’s money to cover the checks he signs, who doesn’t keep track of the deposit receipts, who seems to have no knowledge of the most important aspects of his job?

Is Josh Fromson really that dumb and incompetent?

Or was his sworn testimony, perhaps, a bit short of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I completely agree with the cause, and I applaud the boldness of the woman who was staged a mock hanging at the Chinese consulate. Great TV, drew attention to Tibet, everything a good demonstration should do, and I'm sorry she got hurt and there ought to be an investigation and all that ....

But I must say: Climbing on the roof of the Chinese consulate was not the brightest move.

Under international law, that's sovereign Chinese territory. And the U.S. and China are not exactly on perfect friendly terms these days. I bet there's all kinds of fancy spy equipment and electronics on that roof, and there may be a way into the consulate from up there, and no nation likes people sneaking into or climbing around on their embassies and consulates.

Can you imagine what the Marine guards would do if a Chinese protester climbed onto the roof of the U.S. embassy in Beijing?

Nyendak Wangden is lucky she didn't get shot.

The word that Gavin Newsom is taking to campaign consultant Garry South is suddenly big talk on the blogs.

It started that way a growing number of political stories are starting these days, with an enterprising blogger catching someone in what was supposed to be a private meeting. In this case, Zuma Dogg of Los Angeles spied Gavin Newsom at a Starbucks (with his SUV parked in a fire lane) chatting with the prominent (and notorious) South.

Now Newsom is getting denounced on Calitics and is facing an (admittedly insider) threat that some progressives may abandon him as he moves to the political center.

A couple of thoughts on this.

1. Garry South isn't running Newsom's campaign. That's still the job of Eric Jaye. In fact, Jaye tells me that South hasn't been hired yet: "We're taling to him," Jaye said. "We're putting together a team. But nobody's been hired yet." Not saying that Jaye is going to advise against a move to the center or anything, but if South does come on, it will be as a senior advisor.

2. I get the problems with Garry South, and I'm not defending him here, but anyone who thinks Newsom will run for governor as a San Francisco progressive hasn't been paying attention to the mayor's history and career. He ran for mayor the first time as a pro-business moderate, and that's how he'll run for governor. He won't deny promoting same-sex marriage (which, frankly, won't be a big issue in the Democratic primary anyway and can only help him) and will try to be an environmentalist (isn't everyone these days?), but he won't be talking about raising taxes on the rich. Isn't going to happen.

3. What this really means is that Newsom's "exploratory" campaign is getting a little less exploratory and a little more serious. No doubt Jaye has been doing polls to see if Newsom's record would fly in a statewide race, and no doubt he's found that his man can be sold to the voters will the proper packaging. And now Team Newsom is getting into gear. Even Jaye admitted that "the exploratory campaign is stepping up its efforts."

So look for Newsom to pay even less attention to City Hall and even more to vote-rich Southern California in the next few months.

Cindy Sheehan wants to challenge Nancy Pelosi , which is a fine idea, but she's having a bit of trouble getting enough signatures to make the ballot. I quote from a press release:

The percentage of "valid" signatures that the SF Department of Elections are allowing is getting lower and lower as we get closer to our goal.

We turned in 1932 on Monday and they invalidated 49% of the signatures.

We turned in 425 yesterday and they invalidated 78% of them.
The thing about that, is that I personally checked every signature in that batch, and I came up
with a 55-60 percent valid rate.

We figure at this rate, we need to turn in 3000 by tomorrow at 5pm.

HELP! HELP! HELP! We have 24 hours......

If you want to help Sheehan make the ballot, you can stop by her campaign office at 1260 Mission St (open 24 hours) or call 415 621 5027.

Just got word that state Assemblymember (and Senator-elect) Mark Leno is going to endorse School Board member Mark Sanchez for supervisor in District 9. "We've got his endorsement," Sanchez just told me by phone. "We're putting out the press release today."

That makes two Green Party members the Democratic lawmaker is backing; he's also endorsed Ross Mirkarimi in D5. Good for Leno not to let the irrational fear of Greens that so many Democrats harbor influence him; this is, after all, a nonpartisan race.

It's a tough choice in D9 -- Sanchez, Police Commission member David Campos and housing activist Eric Quezada are all good progressives and any of the three would be a great supervisor. Quezada, I think, never had much of a chance with Leno; he's pretty close to Sup. Chris Daly, who was a strong backer of Carole Migden in the bitter Migden-Leno senate race. Campos is close to Sup. Tom Ammiano, who was neutral in the Leno-Migden brawl -- but Campos, who is on the Democratic County Central Committee, voted for Aaron Peskin as chair. Leno's candidate (and he was pusing him hard) was Scott Weiner, who narrowly lost.

Quezada also ran for DCCC, but didn't win.

Sanchez, as a Green, was able to stay out of both the Migden-Leno fight and the Peskin-Weiner contest. Oddly enough, not being a Democrat may have helped him here.

Campos, by taking the stand he thought was right and voting for Peskin (despite immense pressure), may have scotched any chance of getting Leno's endorsement. "That's politics," he told me. Yes, it is.

(UPDATE: Sanchez corrects me: He endorsed Leno for state Senate months before the election. So the Leno endorsement is even less of a surprise.)

Four environmental groups and two cities today filed a lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court challenging the California High Speed Rail Authority's recent decision to lay track over Pacheco Pass, rather than going with the Altamont Pass option preferred by the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit isn't likely to directly affect this November's Proposition 1, the $10 billion bond measure that would allow work to begin on the San Francisco-Anaheim high-speed rail project. Yet the language in the bond measure could be updated to include new fiscal oversight and other provisions if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs Assembly Bill 3034, which this week broke through a logjam in the Assembly and appears likely to win Senate approval next week.

The lawsuit was filed by the Planning and Conservation League, Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund, California Rail Foundation, Bay Rail Alliance, and the cities of Atherton and Menlo Park.
A press release from CRF says, "The environmental and transit groups advocate a well-planned, cost- effective, and environmentally sensitive high-speed rail system in California. They want high-speed trains along the Altamont route, to help commuters from the Central Valley and Sacramento, who currently clog up Interstates 80 and 580. This route would divert millions of regional trips annually to electrified rail, yielding extremely significant air quality, greenhouse gas reduction, and energy savings benefits."

CHSRA staffers and board members argued that Pacheco was a cheaper, faster route that eliminated the need for a costly and logically difficult bay crossing to reach San Francisco. South Bay political leaders also threatened to oppose the project if Altamont was chosen. Yet CHRSA is also working on a regional rail connection over Altamont that would eventually tie into the high-speed rail system, which is at least a decade away from being operational.

Bad news for all of you Cindy Sheehan haters: She announced today that she has enough signatures and will be on the fall ballot challenging Nancy Pelosi.

I don't think she's going to win, and I don't think Pelosi's going to spend a lot of time worrying about her, so I don't think this is any kind of threat to the Democratic Party gaining seats in Congress. But I do think it will be nice to have someone out there talking about the war, and impeachment, and the Presidio, and all the other issues Pelosi has ducked or been wrong on.

Officials with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency admitted yesterday that they cooked a state grant application, by claiming that they needed the funds to fill a $25 million gap in the budget of a project that the City is developing with Lennar at Hunters Point Shipyard.

But what they really wanted the monies for, the agency claimed, was to boost a shrinking community benefit fund that was supposedly to be derived from development profits.

The admission came during a hearing into Lennar’s fiscal health. The hearing was requested by Sup. Chris Daly, following the discovery that the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency had applied for, but been denied, a $25 million grant from the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development to subsidize infrastructure costs.

The June 10 grant application discovery, coupled with Lennar's June 7 bankruptcy filing at Mare Island, heightened concerns that Lennar was planning to mothball the Shipyard/Candlestick redevelopment project, even though voters had greenlighted an increase in the size of that project, just days earlier, on June 3.

Daly’s mothballing concerns were understandable, given that Stephen Maduli-Williams, SFRA’s Deputy Executive Director of Community and Economic Development had claimed, in a May 23 letter to the state that, “without the requested $25,021,079 Infill grant allocation, our infrastructure project faces a serious risk of being mothballed. The project would face increased costs from work stoppage, remobilization efforts and substantial change orders.”

At yesterday’s hearing, Maduli-Williams repeatedly denied that there was any hole in the project's budget. Instead, he argued that he had manufactured the hole in an effort to increase funds to the project's community benefit fund.

“This was one of the resources we felt compelled to apply for, because, if successful, it would be a direct benefit to the Legacy Fund,” Maduli-Williams said, noting that 60 percent of the profits from the development go to Lennar, while only 40 percent to the Redevelopment Agency, who will turn these funds over to the Bayview.

Maduli-Williams noted that had the agency received the grant, “it would, if anything, have been a pass-through to the agency, not Lennar.”

As for the “hole in the project,” that these monies allegedly would have filled, Maduli Willians claimed he invented the hole after being turned down in the first round of applications, in which $1 billion worth of applications were vying for only $240 million in grants.

“Without this hole, we were told, we would not qualify,” Maduli-Williams said. “It’s part of our job to turn over every rock we can to benefit the Bayview.”

“Lennar is not in severe financial difficulty,” he added, observing that pursuant to the deposition and development agreement that Lennar signed, a developer is deemed to be in default, if its net worth falls below $400 million.

“Currently, Lennar has $900 milion in cash and has zero corporate debt,” Maduli-Williams claimed. “Yes, there is money to complete the project.”

Besides dumping millions of dollars on influencing the outcomes of elections, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. also doles out a lot of cash to charities – about $18 million a year, which is around one percent of their pre-tax income. It’s a gift from the shareholders back to you, the community that’s making them rich.

The list of non-profits that get grants from PG&E is long and spreads from coast to coast, but most of them are based in and around San Francisco. It’s an interesting thing to look over, for it says a lot about who might have a soft spot for PG&E, and it reminds us of the perennial shills, like the A. Philip Randolph Institute (APRI), which sends members to speak at public meetings against anything PG&E also opposes.

But I was a little surprised to see Brightline Defense Project make the list of grantees in 2007.

By popular demand, here's some highlights from PG&E's 2007 charitable giving. If you want to see the complete list, look at pages 58-90 of this PDF. That document also includes the dues they pay to belong to certain organizations which tend to have certain sway with certain politicians and voting blocks. Example: a whopping $325,000 to belong to the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. Who shows up at the first public hearing on the Clean Energy Act, to argue -- with PG&E talking points -- against putting it on the ballot? The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.

PG&E also paid $90,000 to the Committee on Jobs, $92,500 to the Bay Area Council (on top of the $40,000 gift they also gave the group -- which has also shilled for them at public meetings), and $26,500 for BOMA

There are some other interesting grants to note. For example, Slide Ranch got $5,000. Who's on the board of Slide Ranch? Francesca Vietor, who's up for possible appointment to the SF Public Utilities Commission.

Most of the grants are pennies to PG&E, but a couple nudge up into significant chunks of change. Over a million each went to the Foundation for Environmental Education and the National Energy Education Development Project.

See some other familiar faces, after the jump:

Sup. Tom Ammiano had a short but pointed list of questions for Michael Antonini during a Rules Committee meeting of the Board of Supervisors Aug. 7 held to determine whether Antonini should be reappointed to the San Francisco Planning Commission. Gavin Newsom nominated Antonini for reappointment July 8 after the mayor’s office refused to tell the Guardian last month if he planned to do so.

Newsom’s selection of Antonini requires majority support from the board, and its progressive faction, irked by Antonini’s pro-development tenure, took the opportunity to find out how he planned to help the city ensure that 64 percent of all new housing construction was affordable to low-income residents, as San Francisco’s General Plan calls for.

Antonini told the supervisors he felt the city could move closer to that goal by essentially redefining poverty and raising the threshold for what constitutes a low-income earner, currently based on how much people make compared to the area’s median income. If the percentile was raised, developers could describe as “affordable” costlier housing units that are actually expensive and out of reach to a lot of buyers in the city.

“One of the areas that we’re really having a problem with is middle-income families,” Antonini told the committee, “and without in any way diminishing the number of units we build for lower-income groups, I think that we can accomplish that goal more realistically by having that percentile be higher.”

Ammiano also wanted to know why the planning commissioner backed the construction of a new Walgreens at Cesar Chavez and Mission streets just blocks from two other store locations in the supervisor’s district 9.

“Do you really believe that my district is under-served by Walgreens?” Ammiano asked with a smile.

I'm surprised that this blogger is the only one who seems to have picked up on the NBC announcers' astonishing comments that the Romanian gymnastics team would have been better off if the coach was still being mean and harsh to the girls.

In the days of Nadia Comaneci, "there would have been no hugs" for a performer who fell off the balance beam," the sportscasters said after a disappointing performance.

That's right: Beat and abuse the children, and they'll do much better in prime time. Thanks, NBC.

Apparently (although this Chronicle story doesnt' show much actual evidence of it) the Obama campaign isn't happy with the idea of Hillary Clinton's name being entered in the formal nomination process in Denver. COme on; I was for Obama, Clinton was wrong on the war ... but this was an historic campaign, and she ought to have her moment and her supporters should be able to wave their placards around. She lost, fair and square, but give her some credit.

Paul Hogarth at BeyondChron raises an excellent question: Will Nancy Pelosi, who says she supports Al Gore's ambitious renewable-energy goals, support San Francisco's Clean Energy Act?

Pelosi can't easily duck it, since the Democratic County Central Committee will vote tomorrow night on whether to endorse the Charter Amendment, and Pelosi is a member of that panel. She never goes, of course, but she has a proxy, who presumably will be voting the way the Speaker has instructed. So we shall see.

We shall also see where FIona Ma, Leland Yee, and Betty Yee, all members of the DCCC, are on this landmark measure.

Gawker is all in a lather about Digg.com and the "white male nerds" there who think

whatever Bush says is wrong, whatever the MSM says is wronger, and if the two are in agreement it's clearly the wrongest idea ever.

I'm not going to comment on Gawker's rather harsh (and I must admit, amusing) descriptions of the denizens of Digg, but I will say:

I tracked down the article that the fuss is all about, which ran in the U.K. Guardian. It's not nutty at all; it's actually a thoughful, well-reasoned opinion piece about the geopolitics of the Caucaus and the reasons the U.S. should stay the hell out.

So if this is what the Diggers like, they're a lot more intelligent that Gawker would have you believe.