Eastern Neighborhoods moving forwardby Amanda Witherell
The Board of Supervisors, at their Nov. 25 meeting, moved the Eastern Neighborhoods plan a little farther along in the legislative process. The political peregrinations that occurred at the previous meeting, during which the legislation was splintered into several pieces for political reasons, were resolved and the entire package is once again unified
As we reported in this week’s issue, Sup. Aaron Peskin had made some last minute amendments to add more accountability to parts of the plan. Sup. Sean Elsbernd didn’t like the move and severed them – effectively making them their own individual pieces of the legislation and vulnerable to line-item vetos from Mayor Gavin Newsom. Why would Newsom veto them? Why would speculating developers want to be required to start building within three years? Right.
Additionally, with Sup. Tom Ammiano outbound for Sacto and Sup. Chris Daly recused from voting because he owns property in the plan area, the board majority on this issue withers to six, with already suspicious intentions coming out of Sup. Gerardo Sandoval.
Anyway, yesterday the Board agreed to mend fences and move forward by rolling all the amendments back into the original legislation, which no longer allows Newsom to target specific parts of it. Most of the amendments still weren’t favored by Elsbernd, Chu, and Alioto-Pier, and Sandoval was the sole vote against a “use it or lose it” provision to reduce speculation (See above link, and our story that details his own precious amendment designed to benefit one developer in particular.)
The legislation will get its last read and vote at the Dec. 9 meeting.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (4)
Supervisor-elect Campos promised to extract 50% affordable out of the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan.
Perhaps Campos could call upon the current Board to delay passage of this until David can figure out how to fulfill that campaign promise?
Or would Peskin do Campos a favor by clearing that off of the table, so such an ambitious campaign promise need never be kept and Campos can duck the issue as Ammiano did.
Wouldn't that be convenient?
-marc
Posted by Marc Salomon | November 29, 2008 11:24 AM
Oh Marc,
If only you were our supervisor. But that's not likely to happen as long as you're photographed masturbating at the Folsom Street Fair and riding in Critical Mass naked. And, with a full boner.
Leave Ammiano alone, Marc. You couldn't carry his sweaty jockstrap.
h.
Posted by h. brown | November 29, 2008 04:36 PM
I hope that h. is being sarcastic when he wishes Marc were a Supervisor because Marc, as a Supervisor, would be a complete and utter disaster and, due to his unrelenting combativeness (which the Chron and downtown would exploit with intense relish), would probably single-handedly bring back city-wide elections for that office. When he isn't sparring with people who DARE to disagree with his worldview and his strategies for making the world a better place, he is calling them "stalinists" and telling them that they "don't play for keeps" and that they are making SF a "Disneyland for trustafarians".
In addition, if he were on the Board of Supes, he would spend half his time locking horns with and generally making life a living hell for all Board members -- perhaps especially the progressive ones -- and the other half of the time badmouthing them in the press and being completely ineffective. All Marc has to project his inner disatisfaction and insecurities are blogs. This is not to say Marc doesn't have some great ideas -- he does. But for all our well-beings, let's ensure that the vitriol doesn't have legs to run with.
Posted by expatriate | November 29, 2008 09:01 PM
Gotta love this. Like Willie said: The progressives eat their young.
Marc as a supervisor would be a complete and utter disaster - his housing policy would amount to handpicking who could and couldnt live in SF.
We definitely dont want the wrong kind of san franciscans moving here!
Posted by bob | December 9, 2008 09:27 AM