By Tim Redmond

Our local private utility continues to make enemies. Ling Ma reports in the East Bay Express that merchants are complaining about the length of time it takes to get natural gas service hooked up; we hear the same about electricity service. You rent a space and prepare to open a business, then it takes six months to get lights and gas service, and all that time you're paying rent and maybe paying employees -- and PG&E doesn't care. Ma reports that there are no state laws mandating service intervals for utility connections for businesses.

Meanwhile, the Sacramento Bee notes that PG&E won't release key documents related to a deadly gas explosion in Rancho Cordova.

I know the Legislature's going to be busy with the budget this spring, but somebody ought to introduce a bill mandating that private utilities provide service to new customers within some reasonable period of time -- and that records relating to utility safety practices are public. This is one that can unite progressives and small business owners and public safety agencies..

Image from imdb.com's archive for "American Pimp".

Text by Sarah Phelan

Folks in Oakland—and those in the parallel universe that makes films about Oakland—are getting their knickers in a twist about a HBO drama that wants to focus on a 40something Oakland-based pimp’s attempts to get out of the world’s oldest profession.

In the right corner, we have Mayor Ron Dellums, who is worried about the impact of the show, called ‘Gentlemen of Leisure” and based on a 1999 documentary called “American Pimp”, on Oakland’s image as a “model city."

In the left corner, we have folks who are worried about the impact of canceling the show, set to begin 2009, on Oakland’s already flailing economy.

And stuck in the middle, so it seems, are the folks at Oakland’s Film Office.

Reached by phone, Ami Sims, (oops, as one reader just pointed out, her name is Ami Zins, not Sims) Film Coordinator for Oakland’s Film office, told the Guardian that she had heard nothing, in terms of the show actually being nixed.

“The company doesn’t even have a script, so there’s really nothing to talk about,” Zins told me.
Pressed for details of how the City could stop HBO from filming and whether it has taken steps to do so, Zins said, “I’m not supposed to talk about it.”

So, what in heck is going on in Oakland, a city made infamous by Too Short’s "No love from Oakland” which begins “Ain't no love in Oakland, bitch/ Niggas always talkin bout 'I love you'/But ain't no love, bitch”?

Shortly before Christmas, the San Jose Mercury News reported that the HBO proposal had come under fire from Mayor Ron Dellums and other city officials before filming had even started.

‘It’s the mayor’s view that this project goes against our vision of Oakland as a ‘model city’ and does a disservice to residents and visitors alike,” Dellum’s chief of staff David Chai told the Merc. “The people of Oakland have come too far to have our city’s name trampled upon in the name of entertainment.”

Now, it’s true that folks nationwide hold a negative stereotype of Oakland, and that the City has spent a lot of time, money and effort to clean up its crime-plagued streets.

But that doesn’t take away from the reality the Oakland continues to be crime ridden and that pimps are no strangers to many of its less than pristine streets.

In 2008, Oakland witnessed 124 homicides. That’s three fewer than in 2007. But 25 more than in San Francisco, which saw 99 homicides (its highest since 1995) in 2008. And it's a stunning 121 more than the city of Alameda, which saw three homicides in 2008 and is only separated from Oak town by a short underground tunnel.

It’s also true that Oakland is in a very dire financial predicament, one that Mayor Dellums predicts will only get worse over the next couple of years. The City’s $42 million deficit in 2008 could balloon to $113 million by 2012.

So, could ‘Gentlemen of Leisure” be Oakland's financial salvation?

City officials argue that the $150-a-day cost of a film permit is chump change, given that the project would only reinforce the city’s criminal reputation.

But as a film industry source, who prefers to remain anonymous, points out, Oakland would also benefit from the jobs that the show would create, not to mention the trickle down effect of people spending their paychecks locally.

“These are jobs we could have had, that actors who live in the East Bay could have had” our source said, noting that the Emmy-award winning show Dexter “doesn’t mean that everybody who lives in Florida is a serial killer.”

By Tim Redmond

The coverage on KTVU of the latest BART police shooting shows what TV news can do at its best. While the Chron was relying on official accounts and some witnesses, KTVU got two sets of cell-phone videos that show the horror of the shooting in black and white. Then there's the painful press conference when a BART spokesman talks about the safety of the passengers and says it's "regrettable" for someone to die.

But what's been missing in most of this discussion is the fact that this is nothing new -- the BART police have been involved in improper shootings at least twice previously -- and in both cases, the officers were cleared of any wrongdoing.

The big problems is that BART has no civilian oversight for the police. There's no BART Board committee that monitors the BART cops, no independent investigative agency, nowhere except the BART Police to file complaints against the BART police. It's the only major police agency in the Bay Area that operates with zero effective civilian oversight.

Here are two alarming examples of past police abuse:

1992: A BART cop shoots and kills an unarmed man who is walking away.

2001: A BART cop shoots an unarmed naked man.

I asked BART Board member Tom Radulovich today if there's any way this incident will finally lead to a movement for civilian oversight of the BART police. He said he favors that -- but he'll need more votes. Here's the BART Board president and vice-president. You can reach president Blalock at (510) 490-7565 and vice-president Fang (who represents San Francisco) at 415-397-0220. Blalock's phone keeps ringing and doesn't seem to have voice mail, but I'll keep trying. I left Fang a message. You can do that, too.

Lynette Sweet represents parts of San Francisco, too. I can't find a phone number for her and the BART office won't give it out, but here's her email: Lynettebart@aol.com.

By Tim Redmond

The shooting of Oscar Grant, which was captured on several videos, may become for the BART police what Rodney King was in LA: An incident so outrageous it sparks public demand for reform.

The BART Board is still largely missing in action here (although Tom Radulovich, who represents San Francisco, says he supports a move for civilian oversight and will push it if he can get a few other votes). But Assembly Member Tom Ammiano told me he's looking at what the state Legislature can do here, and Sup. David Campos told me he's going to introduce a resolution calling on BART to create a credible civilian oversight system.

I talked about this on KQED's Forum this morning, and urged people to call the BART board members and demand action. The problem, frankly, is that a lot of the people on the BART board are lazy -- they don't want to put in the time or do the work necessary to properly monitor the 200 armed officers they send out to patrol the trains. That's unacceptable, and they need a swift kick in their collective asses. Maybe a push by the state, and all of the cities tha BART passes through, will help.

By the way, BART's chief spokesman, Linton Johnson, is kind of a problem. He walked off in the middle of the show ths morning, saying someone on his staff had called in sick. And in an interview last night, when he was asked why BART still hasn't interviewed the officer, he suggested we all look at it "from the officer's perspecitive."

Uh, no, Mr. Johnson -- you're management. You have to look at it from the public's perspective.

Leon Panetta was a longtime congressman
from Monterey, widely respected for his intelligence
and integrity, before joining the Clinton Administration.

By Steven T. Jones

President-elect Barack Obama sent a clear reformist message by selecting Leon Panetta to head the Central Intelligence Agency, and Senate Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein responded with an equally clear message that she intends to block meaningful reform of this country’s disgraceful imperial overreach.
It’s not surprising. Feinstein has always been a faithful servant of the rich and powerful, and since 9/11 she’s been complicit in the Bush Administration’s illegal approach to the “war on terror” – implicitly condoning illegal spying, torture, assassinations, and fabrication of the casus belli in Iraq -- while personally profiting from U.S. wars.
Also complicit in this unconstitutional mess is San Francisco’s other top congressional Democrat, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who knew about Bush’s warrantless wiretapping all along, did nothing to stop or expose it, and single-handedly blocked the impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
The question now is whether Obama, with the help of the progressive movement that helped elect him, can overcome these powerful defenders of the status quo. Because only a respected outsider (at least during the Bush years) like Panetta – rather than the intelligence community insider Feinstein wants – can credibly repair the damage and set a new course for this country.

By Sarah Phelan

With the next regularly-scheduled election not until November 2009 -- that's nearly halfway through the fiscal year and too late to address the City’s staggering $575.6 million projected deficit, which threatens to kill or maim just about every program and service that local citizens hold dear--termed-out Board President Aaron Peskin used his last day on the Board of Supervisors to call for a June 2 municipal election “for the purpose of submitting revenue and fiscal measures to the voters.”

But, as Peskin’s resolution notes, to conduct an election on such short notice, the City must modify certain election procedures and deadlines. And such modifications are permissible if the Board finds an emergency

“The Board of Supervisors therefore finds that an emergency exists," Peskin's resolution states.

"This emergency ordinance will ensure that the City is able to submit and the voters are able to consider revenue measures designed to avoid the impending deficit threatening the public health, safety and welfare.”

Suggested measures include

**A possible increase in sales tax “and a possible dedication of the proceeds of the tax increase to emergency health and human services and to public protection.”
**A possible increase in the payroll tax
**A possible new residential utilities users tax
**A possible increase in the commercial utilities users tax
**A possible new parcel tax
**A possible new gross receipts tax on residential rental income
**A possible new gross receipts tax on commercial rental income
**A possible new gross receipts tax on all commercial transactions
**A possible new surcharge on the parking tax
**A possible amendment to the City charter to allow the City to appropriate up to 100 percent of the current balance in the Rainy Day Reserve, not to exceed 20 percent of the projected deficit in years in which budgetary deficit of $250 million or more is projected

A possible new charter amendment that would cap all set-asides at their Fiscal Year 2008-2009 level, allow the City to reduce its contributions during budgetary shortfalls, and provide that year-end surpluses be returned to the General Fund.

Peskin is proposing to modify the election code so the Board can consider such measures fewer than 30 days after receiving drafts and legislative digests, if both are delivered to the Clerk of the Board at least 72 hours prior to committee hearings and made available to the public at that time.

Wow. Sounds like the incoming Board is going to be pretty darn busy.

On a related note, Sup. Sean Elsbernd introduced a charter amendment for the November 3, 2009 election, requiring that “one-time revenues be spent only for one-time uses, unless otherwise authorized by the Board.” In other words, not on salaries. Stay tuned.

By Tim Redmond

Wow, this is nasty. But real. Marc Cooper, longtime alternative press reporter and columnist, dissects (with a nice, sharp scalpel) the decline of the LA Weekly under the chain now known as Village Voice Media, nee New Times Newspapers.

His nut:

Weekly readers were informed, quite simply by its out-of-town owners, that they have been wrong, wrong, wrong for the last 30 years. They might think they like opinion and commentary and national news and sober and thorough investigative reporting, and all with a progressive tinge. But they've been wrong. Dead wrong. Instead, they want a smart-alecky, sophomoric, barely edited, thinned out, often reactionary sensationalist stew that displays little or no editorial rhyme nor reason. Yeah! That's the formula.

Sound familiar?

(Oh, and by the way: Here's the last column from Nat Hentoff, who these same chain owners just fired at the VIllage Voice.)

From Vallejo's "Discover Vallejo" site.

Text by Sarah Phelan

“Due to the Company’s termination of its right to purchase certain LandSource assets, the Company recognized deferred profit of $101.3 million in the fourth quarter of 2008 (net of $31.8 million of write-offs of option deposits and pre-acquisition costs and other write-offs) related to the recapitalization of the Company’s LandSource joint venture in 2007.”

I’m no expert on investor relations, but it seems that the above paragraph, excerpted from Lennar’s December 18 2008 8-K report, means that by filing bankruptcy at Mare Island last summer, Lennar either spared its shareholders from further loss, or earned them a profit.

Either way, the financial calculation that lurks behind that deal feels like cold comfort to communities like San Francisco whose last pieces of undeveloped lands are caught up in Lennar’s shareholder-driven financial web.

Photo of Market and Octavia intersection by Kate.

By Steven T. Jones

San Francisco’s bicycle community is baffled by last night’s unanimous Metropolitan Transportation Agency vote to seek the removal of bike lanes at the intersection of Market and Octavia, where more than a dozen cyclists have been injured by cars making illegal right turns onto the freeway.
The logic offered by MTA traffic engineer Jack Fleck and the City Attorney’s Office (which is apparently concerned about liability issues after a couple injured cyclists sued the city) is that forcing bikes and cars to merge into one lane will prevent drivers from inadvertently turning into cyclists.
But that logic apparently only makes sense to bureaucrats and lawyers (and Mayor Gavin Newsom’s MTA appointees, none of whom seem to understand bike issues) because the plan has been uniformly criticized today by cyclists and other alternative transportation types. They say the forced merge at that busy intersection will only create more conflicts between bikes and cars.
“It makes no sense. I was really surprised they even brought it to the board,” said Leah Shahum, executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, which was not consulted on the proposal.
Even the Planning Department agrees this is a dumb idea, one that conflicts with the Upper Market Design Plan that was approved less than two months ago. It calls for raised, colored bike lanes to make cyclists more visible and with trees and other visual barriers to make that illegal turn less attractive to drivers.
Ironically, bicyclists are placing their hopes for killing the proposal in Judge Peter Busch, who issued the current injunction against new bicycle projects and who will be asked Jan. 22 to approve this proposal. As Shahum said, “Our hope is that the judge denies it.”

By Tim Redmond

Aaron Peskin, who has generally been a good Board of Supervisors president, gave the city a nice going-away present at his last meeting, moving to call a special election in June to look for ways to raise new revenue.

It's got the mayor's panties all in a wad:

Mayoral press secretary Nathan Ballard said Newsom is in the middle of sensitive negotiations with labor and business leaders that could result in broad support for any cost-cutting or revenue-raising measures, but that Peskin's legislation "threw a money-wrench into the plan."

In other words, Gavin Newsom wants to squeeze labor for every penny he can get, and cut as much as possible out of the city budget -- and the prospect that all that blood on the floor might not be necessary, that there's actually a chance of bringing in new revenue, screws up all of his plans.

Too bad. There's no way to cut $500 million out of the city budget without losing very essential services. Peskin did the right thing; at the very least, new revenue ought to be part of the budget discussions.

By Tim Redmond

There's action on the state level to force the BART Board to create some level of civilian oversight for the BART police.

The action comes in the wake of the fatal shooting Jan. 1 of Oscar Grant -- an apparent case of gross police misconduct caught on numerous cell-phone videos.

Assemblymember Tom Ammiano and state Sen. Leland Yee are introducing legislation to require some form of civilian oversight for the BART police. The state has every right to do that; the BART police only exist as a force with full peace officer powers because the state Legislature granted BART that authority in 1976.

Yee and Ammiano were responding to the shooting and to a Guardian editorial pointing out the long history of problems with the BART police and calling for civilian oversight.

Sup. David Campos will introduce a similar resolution at the Board of Supervisors soon.

Meanwhile, the BART police are saying they can't talk to the officer because he's resigned. That's such nonsense -- the guy is no longer a cop, so Internal Affairs can't question him, but he is, by any standard, a homicide suspect, and the BART police, Oakland police and Alameda County Sheriff's office can all seek to question him.

In fact, it's likely he resigned because his lawyer suspects there might be criminal charges.

By Steven T. Jones

City Hall is packed with people here to watch the election of the new Board of Supervisors president, both in board chambers and the overflow area of the North Light Court. The nominees (in order of nomination) are Chris Daly (who nominated himself), Sophie Maxwell (nominated by Bevan Dufty), Ross Mirkarimi (nominated by David Campos), John Avalos, and David Chiu (those last two nominated one another).
Public comment is now underway and should take awhile. Stay tuned because I'll announce the winner as soon as there is one.

On the seventh vote, Dist. 3 Sup. David Chiu has been elected president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

By Steven T. Jones

How did David Chiu, the supervisor with the least experience in government, end up as president of the Board of Supervisors? And what does it say about the role that ideology and alliances will play in a city that’s wrestling with a dire economic situation?

I have some thoughts on both of those questions, but first, let’s run through how today’s voting went down because it illustrates the political dynamics now at work in City Hall. It’s important to understand that there was a split in the board’s progressive majority, which includes Chiu, John Avalos, David Campos, Eric Mar, Chris Daly, and Ross Mirkarimi.

After the last election in which the first four of those progressives first won their supervisorial seats, Daly (and to a lesser degree, Avalos) privately began to challenge Mirkarimi’s bid for president, for reasons both personal and political. But they pledged to vote for a progressive and began promoting the idea that one of the four freshmen get the job.

That move raised the possibility that Mirkarimi (a Green who was the top supervisorial vote-getter in November and a strong contender for mayor) might look for some moderate votes, or perhaps even support a moderate pick like Sophie Maxwell or Bevan Dufty. That was the stage that was set for today’s vote.

Photo by Luke Thomas
“Mr. Mayor, it’s great to see you in Chambers. We need to have your cooperation," Sup. John Avalos (far right) tells Newsom (second from right), as newly elected Board President David Chiu (second from left) and Clerk of the Board Angela Cavillo (far left) look on.

Text by Sarah Phelan
Newly sworn-in Supervisor John Avalos told the Guardian yesterday that he had asked to be on the board's powerful Budget and Finance Committee and would happy to be its chair.

And now comes news that Avalos, who represents the predominantly working class District 11, has got his wish.

Avalos, who was sworn in yesterday by newly elected Board President David Chiu, will take over as the Budget and Finance Committee chair from termed-out Sup. Jake McGoldrick.

The move comes as the City faces its worst budget deficit since the Depression.

But though Avalos is a first-time supervisor, he already has a deep and broad understanding of the City's budget process, knowledge that he gleaned while working as Sup. Chris Daly's legislative analyst for the past three years.

"John Avalos has more experience of budget issues than me," Daly told me yesterday, outside the Board Chambers, after the inaugural meeting was over. "Because while I was in there (Daly gesticulates towards the Board chambers) listening to endless hours of public comment, John, as my legislative analyst was meeting with the Controller and the Budget Analyst and all the other people involved in the budget process."

But even Avalos is awestruck by the tsunami of bad financial news that has hit the City.

"I was visibly shaken" Avalos told me of his reaction during in a recent meeting about the City's budgetary woes.

Avalos' appointment as chair means that he can get on with advancing measures related to the city's staggering $576 million deficit. These include holding hearings about legislation that former Board President Aaron Peskin's introduced earlier this week, on his penultimate day on the job.

That legislation proposes a special election in June, so voters can weigh in on a number of proposed, but as yet-to-be finalized revenue generating measures.

Avalos will also oversee hearings on $125 million in midyear budget cuts, including Peskin's proposal to get rid of the Small Business Assistance Center and cut ballet, symphony and opera funding in half.

By Tim Redmond

Okay, I already blogged this, but my first item was just looking at the actual story. You have to go back now, a few days later, and check out the comments It shows (1) how attached people in LA have been to their alternative newspaper, and (2) how strongly many people feel about the assholes who run Village Voice Media. The interactions between Marc Cooper and Rick Barrs (who works for VVM) are almost unprintably delightful.

One of the greatest swindlers in American History, Charles Ponzi's name has become synonymous with any scam that pays early investors returns from the investments of later investors.

Text by Sarah Phelan

I’ve written about Lennar’s rise from a Florida-based small home builder 55 years ago to a nationwide mega developer that was gobbling up land rights and boosting only upward growth, until about two years ago. I’ve also explored its extensive use of joint ventures and limited liability companies and what the economic downturn could mean for Lennar’s proposed developments at San Francisco’s Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point.

And last week, I asked whether Vallejo’s loss, when Lennar declared bankruptcy at Mare Island as part of a LandSource restructuring deal, could somehow have become Lennar’s gain.

And now comes news that Lennar’s stocks took a nasty nose dive last week, when Barry Minkow, who served time for stock fraud, but now apparently investigates fraud in between being a pastor in San Diego, accused Lennar of using its joint ventures like a Ponzi scheme.

By Steven T. Jones

The new San Francisco Board of Supervisors holds its first regular meeting today, following last week’s big leadership vote. The agenda is pretty sparse, but there are two items that will be a big test of the board’s progressive leadership and values.
The first is a veto override on legislation requiring conditional use permits and hearings when housing units are being eliminated. Given that existing units are always the most valuable, this vote will gauge how much support tenants and affordable housing advocates have on the new board – particularly with the potential swing votes of Bevan Dufty and Sophie Maxwell, who the progressive majority would need to override the veto.
The second is an appeal by opponents of a mixed-use project at the corner of Valencia and 14th streets, which includes 36 homes and three stores. It’s the first big project under the new Market Octavia Plan, and the Planning Commission decided to waive the plan’s limitation on construction of parking spaces to one space for every two units.
Parking, and its connection to the city’s Transit First policy, has long been a bone of contention between progressives and the driver-friendly Newsom Administration. But opponents of this project variance rightfully say that decreasing automobile dependency – and all its associated harm, from global warming to traffic congestion – requires the political will to stick to progressive policies developed over many years.
Today’s vote will test the board’s resolve.

By Tim Redmond

So now Mayor Newsom wants to privatize taxi medallions. I get where he's coming from -- selling off the medallions would provide a quick infusion of cash for the city. But it's the wrong way to raise money.

Right now, the medallions are the property of the city, and they're available only to active drivers. The drivers who hold medallions, of course, would love to cash in on something they got free. But if the permits go up for auction, the drivers who have been on the waiting list for years will get screwed, the big cab outfits (or their surrogates) will buy up most of the medallions -- and a lot of the rest will be bought as speculative investments by wealthy people whose only experience with the industry amounts to occasional rides in a cab when their limo drivers are sick. Cab drivers who actually want to own their permits will have to borrow huge amounts of money (and how many will qualify for $500,000 loans in this market?) and will wind up worse off than they are now.

Making this happen will require a ballot initiative to overturn Prop. K, the 1978 measure that set up the current system. The author of that measure, then-Supervisor and now Judge Quentin Kopp, is likely to mount a major campaign against Newsom's move.

As a retired judge who still sits on cases, Kopp is limited in his ability to comment on political issues. But when I called him, he did say that when Newsom and Sup. Aaron Peskin were promoting a charter amendment that merged the Taxi Commission into the MTA, "each of them assured me that the intent was not to alter the current system of permit issuance and the requirements for maintenance of a permit."

He added: "This would require a ballot measure to amend Prop. K, and I reserve the notion of taking a leave of absence for the purpose of assuring the defeat of any such a proposal. If that occurs, it will be consistent with my historical ballot measure activity."

There's some dispute about whether the city can implement this without going back to the ballot -- the mayor clearly thinks he can. But Kopp could probably create a referendum campaign to undo what Newsom does anyway.

And Kopp will raise significant money and muster the significant political forces still at his disposal to fight Newsom -- and knowing Kopp, it will be epic.

Text by Sarah Phelan

Yesterday was the new Board’s first test on two key issues and in both cases, Sup. Bevan Dufty provided Mayor Gavin Newsom with the swing vote he needed.

Dufty’s votes were further evidence that he will likely be swinging increasingly to the right, as the next mayoral race looms on the not too distant horizon.

First, Dufty joined Sups Michela Alioto-Pier, Carmen Chu and Sean Elsbernd, in voting not to override Mayor Gavin Newsom’s veto of legislation that would have required conditional use permits and hearings when housing units are being eliminated.

Then, he joined the mayor’s usual trio of allies to block an appeal by opponents of a mixed-use project at the corner of Valencia and 14th streets. The project includes 36 homes and three stores and is the first big test case of the new Market Octavia Plan. So, even though CU proponents pitched it as being only a case of seven parking spaces, everyone knew it was about a lot more than that.

At issue was the fact that the Planning Commission had decided to waive the plan’s limitation on construction of parking spaces to one space for every two units.

Opponents of the project argued that decreasing automobile dependency and associated harms, including global warming and traffic congestion, require the political will to stick to progressive policies developed over many years.

But Dufty argued that he did not believe this project is “precedent setting” as he went along with the Newsom administration’s top allies on the Board.

To her credit, Sup. Sophie Maxwell joined the progressive voting block on both these issues, despite having lost the Battle for Board President at the hands of the progressive faction. For a moment, we thought she wasn’t going to: Maxwell initially voted not to override Newsom’s veto. But then she rescinded her vote and voted against Newsom. So double kudos go to Maxwell.

It will be interesting to see if planning staff recommend conditional use permits for the Whole Foods on Market and Dolores and a new proposed condo on Market and Buchanan. If they do, then Dufty, who to his credit gave the project sponsor’s attorney David Silverman a hard time for his divide and conquer-style tactics, may find himself having to eat his "not precedent setting" comment.

And despite Dufty’s very public push back against Silverman, Jason Henderson, Vice President of the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association, feels the D 8 Supervisor ultimately didn’t listen to his own constituents enough.

“Bevan’s giving too much weight to some very loud people who constantly pester him, Henderson said.

... where the good lord split ya, as my ma used to say back in Detroit. So I pass on this motherly advice to G.W. on the eve of his "farewell address" (as if we could fare any other way once he's gone).

Someday, some lucky historian will win the Nobel with her theory of what the hell just happened, and how our society went apeshit -- just as we were gaining the scientific knowledge and technological connections to come together and actually fix the world. I'm really hoping this decade saw the last spasm of religious cynicism and entitled hubris, but I think we may have just dodged a Millennial bullet -- with, unfortunately, more to come?

In any case, Bush is so radioactively tacky that even typing his name has made half of you roll your eyes and stop reading this. So instead of continuing into tired diatribe -- and hey let's remind ourselves that pretty much the rest of the world went nutso for the past eight years as well -- here's a nice reader-generated vid that may be a bit over the top and overly familiar, but with Willie Nelson on the soundtrack how can you go wrong?

Let's all "peace out."

It took more time than it should have, but San Francisco's long anticipated ID Card program took off today. Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, who authored the ID card legislation, helped debut the program by receiving his own card at City Hall today.

The card is all-in-one photo identification card that streamlines access to City services and offers discounts at local businesses. The card allows folks to establish borrowing privileges at the library and a family account with Recreation and Parks. Nine banks and credit unions have also stated that they will accept the card to open a financial account.

“The card will help a wide breadth of San Franciscans – children that don’t have a school ID, immigrant workers that want to open a bank account, and seniors that no longer have a need for a driver’s license," Ammiano stated in a press release."The transgender people will also benefit from an ID that accurately represents their identities.”

By Steven T. Jones

San Francisco bicyclists have become increasingly pissed off about the San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Agency's decision last week to try to remove the bike lane at Market and Octavia. They've written angry letters, placed irate phone calls, and will tomorrow be holding a rally at the site during the morning commute.
The MTA's argument that its needs to remove the bike lane in order to save bicyclists from cars making illegal right turns has been pretty much universally rejected by bicyclists, who say it's akin to the Vietnam War tactic of burning villages in order to save them.
Meanwhile, city officials have definitely felt the sting, and they've repeatedly tried to explain the decision to the Guardian and others, so far without being terribly convincing. Will this protest do anything to thwart city plans to seek court approval for the change in a week? We shall see.

By Tim Redmond

I don't think so, not really. The former Assembly speaker and SF mayor has never seen himself as a candidate for statewide office. But check out this missive from publicist and person-about-town Lee Houskeeper:

Tonight at PJ Corkery's memorial in a room full of the usual San Francisco suspects Joe O'Donahue announced that Willie Brown will run for governor. I saw a smile come over his face. After the wake politico's Don Solem, Annemarie Conroy, Ed Moose, and Warren Hinckle were buzzing that at no time during or after Da Mayor's moving eulogy for his ghost writer did Willie deny O'Donahue's statement. He left quickly without comment. . .

Okay, that's not much of an announcement. But here's what it is: A backhanded slap at Mayor Newsom.

Brown, who appointed Newsom to the Board of Supervisors and endorsed him for mayor, could have said: Nah, Gavin's my guy. He could have said, If Dianne Feinstein doesn't run, Gavin's my guy. But no; he just smiled.

As if to say: Given the cast of characters, I wish.

By Tim Redmond

Mayor Gavin Newsom promised in 2007 not to try to undo the system the city uses for allocating taxi permits. Now, he's doing exactly the opposite.

In an Ocotber 3, 2007 letter to Nathanial Ford, executive director of the city's Municipal Transportation Agency, and Heidi Machen, director of the Taxi Commission, Newsom outlined his support for a charter amendment that would allow the merger of the taxi panel and the MTA.

But in the face of concern from cab drivers that the measure would be the end of Prop. K, the 1978 law that allows drivers, and only drivers, to use city cab medallions, Newsom wrote: "We are not supportivei of an effort to merge the Taxi industry unless propert guarantees are made to protect Proposition K."

The letter was also signed by Sup. Aaron Peskin.

So why is the mayor now proposing a measure to privatize the cab medalions, in directly contradiction to the 1978 policy? Wade Crowfoot, Newsom's liason on transportation issues, tells me:

The Mayor has suggested exploring how to reform the taxi medallion system while preserving the foundations of Prop K. Such reform would involve auctioning medallions with proceeds directed toward enhancing taxi oversight and improving Muni. Importantly, the Mayor has suggested continuing to allow only working drivers to hold the medallions. This provision we believe is the heart of Proposition K-- avoiding the the 'corporatization' of the medallions and ensuring that the working men and women who drive the cabs possess the medallions. Under this view, tthe auctions of these medallions would be limited to drivers.

Good to hear that he wants to keep the medallions in the hands of drivers -- although that's going to be hard to do when the permits sell for more than $100,000. But in my mind, he's missing what's really the heart of Prop. K -- the idea that the valuable permits belong to the city.

Peskin doesn't like what the mayor is doing, either. "My name is on a letter that says we won't do this, and now Newsom is going back on his promise," Peskin told me. "I mean, if Newsom and Peskin were both long out of office and somebody else came along and said I'm taking a new look at this, that's one thing. But this was a widely circulated promise not even two years ago. You can't do stuff like this."

UPDATE: I just reached Judge Quentin Kopp, who as a supervisor in 1978 wrote Prop. K. His comment on the mayor's position:

"That is absolutely not the heart of Proposition K. The intent of that measure was to treat [medallions] as a public asset, with a fee based on the cost of preparing an application. It's preposterous to say that the heart of Prop. K is anything but that."

By Tim Redmond

It's taken three deaths, but the BART Board has finally taken the first step toward creating civilian oversight for its 200-member police force. There's now an actual committee of the board charged with monitoring the cops, and BART Board member Tom Radulovich told us he thinks that the board may actually be ready to start establishing an oversight agency.

I have to say, I love cell phone videos. Best thing that's ever happened to the BART police. I've been calling for civilian oversight for these guys since 1992, and since both of the prior killings we've covered happened with no cameras around, BART was able to duck. And since most of the BART Board members were, and are, pretty damn lazy, nothing ever happened.

But now the evidence is clear and obvious, and I hope that the protesters will continue to be vigilant and pressure the board, not just on this one killing but on the structural reforms we need to keep it from happening again.

The Guardian's Paula Connelly and Becca Frank report from the inauguration. View our list of tonight's inauguration parties here.

WASHINGTON DC -- This inauguration is about being a witness. We’re here with millions of people, from average citizens to movie stars and politicians, a fraction of which have limited access to all the restricted seating.

It’s easy to feel unimportant. Much like the disenchanted voter who feels that his or her singular vote is worthless in relation to the masses, so too does standing in a sea of millions of onlookers. After all, we’re just two tourists from San Francisco here to witness history.

But when Anderson Cooper walked past us in a crowd and only a few people noticed and cheered, we got the feeling that we’re all equally unimportant and therefore we all can claim a certain amount of celebrity.
Earlier that afternoon, two middle-aged women from Houston stopped us to pose for a picture with them. We’re all special because we’re here to witness something much larger than ourselves.

All the locals who have friends in town are planning to attend the inaugural events. They admit it with a level of aloof interest, as though they need an excuse to find the gravity of it all enticing. There are also the locals who had long ago decided that the inaugural festivities were only for tourists and die-hards; complete with overwhelming crowds and extremely cold weather.

But the mood is infectious as momentum fills the streets. Everywhere you look there are giant scaffolding, fences and bleachers being erected. We can’t walk five feet without seeing police officers and Obama swag vendors and the roofs near the mall are all lined with snipers.

By Tim Redmond

I was in Washington DC on a cold January day in 1981, when a guy named Ronald Reagan took the oath of office. There was no sense of hope; as many people were marching and shouting to denounce the incoming president as to celebrate him. We marched in the counter-inaugural parade, smoked pot in front of the DEA headquarters, partied in a basement with the Yippies ... and it wasn't until the next day that I actually read Reagan's speech and saw the words that would change everything for many years to come:

"Government isn't the solution to our problems; government is the problem."

That was the official attitude in this country for a long, long time. Even under Clinton, you felt as if everyone in Washington was afraid to be promoting the public sector. Everything was about the indivdual, not the collective; everything was about reducing our dependence on each other.

And now, I think, after that attitude has pretty much wrecked the economy, we may be ready to change.

I listened to Obama's speech with tremendous exicitement. And in some ways, he hit the right notes:

Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.

Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

But the undertone of all of this -- the unspoken words in what was a good, but not exceptional speech -- went like this:

The era when government was the problem, not the solution, are over.

Now it's our turn -- our turn to prove that it's okay to believe in the public sector, our turn to prove that it's fine to think that eveyone has the right to a place to live, the right to a decent income, the right to health care, the right to a minimal standard of living. It's our turn to show that the United States can be a place where we ask the richest and most successful to contribute their fair share --

not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

Barack Obama isn't going to do this alone. He may be able to show the way, he may be able to lead us in the right direction, and he'll certainly support our best intentions. But it's up to us now. We've waited a long time, we've worked our asses off and we're finally in a position to do something. It's our turn now. Let's do it right.

>>>All parties take place tonight, January 20

ActivelyOUT.com Obama Ball

ActivelyOUT.com hosts an Obama Ball at Bruno's Night Club, featuring plasma screens with highlights from Inauguration Day, a dance party with DJ Duarte and a free glass of champagne for the first 150 people. A donation from the evening's proceeds will go to And Marriage for All, a collaborative partnership of African-American community leaders spearheading dialogue and public education about same-sex couples' freedom to marry. "Gay fabulous, str8 friendly, no H8-ers!"

6 -10 p.m., $8 cover, $5 for activelyOUT.com members

Bruno's Night Club

2389 Mission St., S.F.

www.activelyout.com

------------

Rock Barack

Glide into a new era with budget-friendly drink specials at the Paradise Lounge. Rock Barack: The Obama Inauguration Party will featuring 99-cent drafts and 99-cent well drinks from 6 to 9 p.m. the event will benefit not just your budget but the Glide Foundation, a San Francisco nonprofit working to end poverty.

6-9 p.m., $10 donation

Paradise Lounge

1501 Folsom St., S.F.

www.paradisesf.com/calendar.html

--------------------------

League of Young Voters
LYV says: “No need for upscale dress attire for our BALL! We'll have drinks, ginger bread cookies and a good crew celebrating Obama's Inauguration! We need YOU to get the party really started!”

8pm -11pm; $5-25 sliding scale.

El Rio

3158 Mission, SF

www.theleague.com/sf

-----------

Obama mambo

Boogie down to support Amnesty International during its fundraising event, "Dance for Change." Music from hip-hop to house to rock will be spinning all night long, so prepare to shake it for Barack to the wee hours.

9:00 p.m.–2:00 a.m., $10

Le Colonial
20 Cosmo Place, SF

www.amnestyusa.org

----------

Inaugural Ball

Electric Works gallery is hosting an Inaugural Ball featuring a rebroadcast of the inauguration followed by dancing. Formal dress is suggested but not required (changing rooms and borrowed finery will be available for those coming directly from work). Drinks and light hors d'oeuvres will be provided and proceeds benefit the San Francisco Food Bank.

6–10 p.m., $10 donation requested

130 Eighth St., SF

www.sfelectricworks.com

----------

Women, Democrats, and democratic women

The San Francisco Democratic Party and local women's political groups — including Emerge California, Good Ol' Girls, and the San Francisco Women's Political Caucus — are throwing an Inauguration Night party in the swanky Green Room of the War Memorial Opera House, featuring hors d'oeuvres, drinks, and entertainment.

5:30–8:30 p.m., $25

301 Van Ness, SF

www.actblue.com/page/inaugurationsf

(415) 626-1161

info@sfdemocrats.org

---------

Inauguration Skaters' Ball

The California Outdoor Rollersports Association hosts a political roller disco featuring Sarah Palins and Barack Obamas on wheels. There's even a chance that a live feed from the party will be broadcast at the Presidential Gala in Washington. Dress up as your favorite politician and resist the urge to knock out your rivals.

7–11 p.m., $10 adults, kids free. $5 for skates

Funkytown SF

1720 19th St., SF

www.cora.org/ObamaParty.htm

By Steven T. Jones

The mood was buoyant at this morning’s Brunch You Can Believe In, one of countless house parties around San Francisco celebrating U.S. regime change. Host Kid Beyond, who traveled with me to the Democratic National Convention last summer, had a packed house watching an Internet feed of the Presidential Inauguration projected on a large screen.

As could be expected on a day when all of America seems tuned in to this historic occasion, the feed would delay for a few seconds every minute or so, leaving a mimosa-sipping crowd to try to fill in the gaps with jokes or predictions of what came next. But almost every time, what the new president said was better than what we came up with, leaving us time and again saying, “Ohh, he’s gooood.”

This wasn’t just a great speech at a pivotal moment in history. This was poetry, a capturing of the American Zeitgeist, an inspiring call to our better angels. So take a few minutes to read it again because this is our future if we choose to embrace it.

Text and video by Sarah Phelan

Spirits are high in San Francisco, following the departure of former President G. W. Bush, and the inauguration of the 44th U.S. President, Barack Hussein Obama.

I saw a guy walking down Market Street, chanting “O-Ba-Ma”, like it was a protective mantra. And pretty soon other folks were joining in, like newborns emerging from the darkness of the Bush years.

And then there was the crowd of folks who were gleefully throwing shoes at an appropriately shifty cardboard cut-out of Bush. The cut-out was standing inside at colorful carnival booth that antiwar groups Direct Action to Stop the War and Courage to Resist had set up near the Obama inauguration simulcast at Civic Center Plaza.

At first, it was fairly quiet when I got there shortly after 9 AM, but the crowd quickly grew, once people emerged from the simulcast. Pretty soon, folks were eagerly waiting in line and cheering each other on, clearly delighted to have the chance to vent and throw one last shoe at Bush.

“Throw a shoe for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq!” shouted one of the event organizer, quoting Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zeidi, who stunned and delighted the world when he took aim during Bush’s Dec. 14 joint news conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Still in prison in Iraq, al-Zeidi was due to face trial in December on charges of assaulting a foreign leader, which carried a 15-year maximum sentence. But an appellate court is currently considering a motion to reduce his charges to simply insulting Bush. And someone really should award al-Zeidi a medal for managing to pitch a perfect shoe toss under extreme pressure.

By Amanda Witherell

It was a great day to be out and about in San Francisco. This morning, before I headed to Civic Center to watch the swearing-in ceremony in front of City Hall, I was recalling where I had been in 2005 when Bush was inaugurated for the second time -- sitting glumly at my kitchen table in Sedgwick, Maine, listening to the brutal truth broadcast by NPR. Though I lived in the heart of Sedgwick, one could say the "civic center" of what could still be considered a one-horse town -- the street was empty. Town was silent. I turned off the news and, like many of my friends and family, didn't turn it back on for weeks. It was too depressing.

But today, it felt like a time to be among people. Hundreds filled Civic Center to watch the ceremony broadcast on a giant screen by NextArts, and when he spoke, the crowd was silent, attentive, listening, digesting his words and cheering en masse at the ones that hit home.

And it seemed that everywhere I went there were signs of Obama. I walked down the sidewalk behind a group of women were talking about how they felt like a great weight had been lifted off their shoulders. Upbeat strangers chatted amicably with me at the DMV, in spite of waiting lines streaming out the door. At Ocean Beach, a man was flying a floppy, awkward square kite in the unusually calm afternoon breeze.

When I got closer, I could see it was Obama.

By Tim Redmond

While most of us were glued to the inauguration in Washington, a significant battle has been brewing back at home over the city's new Historic Preservation Commission. The commission was another of former Sup. Aaron Peskin's parting gifts to the city, approved on the November 2008 ballot. It strengthens the city's commitment to historic preservation and could become a powerful force against some of the most mindless acts of developers. It could, for example, have the authority to prevent the demolition of affordable rental housing in the name of pricey condos. It will certainly keep the city from allowing developers to bulldoze landmarks.

The mayor gets to appoint members to the panel, and the Board of Supervisors has to confirm those nominees. Most of the people Gavin Newsom has proposed are decent enough. But preservationists are up in arms over the nomination of Jonathan Perlman.

Perlman is an architect, but his critics say he utterly fails to meet the qualifications for the commission (PDF File). He's well known in preservationist circles as the developer rep who sought to demolish the Harding Theater. The Harding is a historic building designed by the Reid Brothers. According to the organized, active group of Harding supporters:

the theater remains remarkably intact. In fact, the Harding is the most intact of the Reid Brothers theaters in San Francisco and still appears much as it did in the 1920s. The theater retains original seats and the fire curtain dating to the opening of the theater. The entrance, floor and aisle plan, balcony, proscenium arch, stage, and decorative ceiling remain intact, as well as significant plaster detail. The auditorium is unique in retaining an original sense of place from the “pre-talkie” days.

And yet, Perlman tried to argue that the place has little merit and that it was fine to turn it into condos. He wanted that done without even an environmental impact report. The Planning Commission and the supervisors have refused to go along.

Perlman refers to supporters of the Harding, who include the widely respected SF Heritage, as "obstructionists." But as preservationist David Tornheim notes, "without the opponents's 'obstructionist tactics,' the developer, with Mr. Perlman's assistance, would have succeed in demolishing a certified historic building without environmental review."

Peskin is lobbying against the nomination, which makes sense: Perlman's record put him directly at odds with the intent of the new commission. The Rules Committee votes on this Jan. 22. It ought to be a no-brainer.

By Tim Redmond

Board President David Chiu has released the list of committee assignments, which look good -- there are three solid progressive votes on the Budget Committee. The winners: David Campos and Ross Mirkarimi both have three good committee assigments. The losers: Sean Elsbernd, who gets only one job. Not sure I would have put him in charge of the school district committee (I'd have put him on budget instead of Carmen Chu), but overall, I don't think the progressives will have a lot to complain about.

(UPDATE: Elsbernd just called me to say that he had requested not to be on budget because his first child is due in June and he wants to have enough time to spend with his family. "And the biggest issue I hear about these days is education," he said. He is thrilled with the assignment he got.)

Here's the rundown:

Budget & Finance
John Avalos, Chair
Ross Mirkarimi, Vice Chair
Carmen Chu, Member
David Campos, Temporary Member
Bevan Dufty, Temporary Member

City Operations & Neighborhood Services
Bevan Dufty, Chair
Chris Daly, Vice Chair
Michela Alioto-Pier, Member

City & School District
Sean Elsbernd, Chair
Bevan Dufty, Vice Chair
John Avalos, Member

Government Audits & Oversight
Ross Mirkarimi, Chair
Eric Mar, Vice Chair
Sophie Maxwell, Member

Land Use & Economic Development
Sophie Maxwell, Chair
Eric Mar, Vice Chair
David Chiu, Member

Public Safety
David Campos, Chair
Ross Mirkarimi, Vice Chair
Michela Alioto-Pier, Member

Rules Committee
Chris Daly, Chair
Carmen Chu, Vice Chair
David Campos, Member

By Tim Redmond

Facing a hearing before the Rules Committee and the strong opposition of preservationists, architect Jonathan Perlman has withdrawn his name from consideration for the Historic Preservation Commission.

His withdrawal letter (to mayoral staffer Michael Yarne), I must say, is one of the greatest acts of whining I've seen from a prospective city official in some time. His basic point: I won't be in the majority and won't win all the time, so I'm not interested.

Check it out after the jump.

Shift happens -- now it's up to us to keep it going ... Our Inauguration Issue celebrates and looks ahead

Photos from DC by Paula Connelly and Becca Frank

>>Live from DC
Blogging the inauguration
By Paula Connelly and Becca Frank

>>Editor's Notes
On every level we all have to get more engaged, more involved in the community
By Tim Redmond

>>Profiles of Change
President Obama's call for citizen action is already resonating
By Amanda Witherell

>>Ending War
Will Obama be able to achieve peace?
By Sarah Phelan

>>Ask not what SF can do for you ...
How progressives can participate in changing the city and world
By Molly Freedenberg

By Tim Redmond

After eight years of brutal secrecy in Washington, including orders from the Justice Department directing agencies to defy Freedom of Information Act requests, this is one of the most refreshing things I've ever seen:

In an attempt to deliver on pledges of a transparent government, Obama said he would change the way the federal government interprets the Freedom of Information Act. He said he was directing agencies that vet requests for information to err on the side of making information public — not to look for reasons to legally withhold it — an alteration to the traditional standard of evaluation.

Just because a government agency has the legal power to keep information private does not mean that it should, Obama said. Reporters and public-interest groups often make use of the law to explore how and why government decisions were made; they are often stymied as agencies claim legal exemptions to the law.

"For a long time now, there's been too much secrecy in this city," Obama said.

He said the orders he was issuing Wednesday will not "make government as honest and transparent as it needs to be" nor go as far as he would like.

"But these historic measures do mark the beginning of a new era of openness in our country," Obama said. "And I will, I hope, do something to make government trustworthy in the eyes of the American people, in the days and weeks, months and years to come."

By Tim Redmond

Village Voice Media, the owner of SF Weekly, has entered into a business deal with LikeMe.com, a weak competitor to Yelp. But already, the arrangement has generated controversy: The Seattle Altweekly The Stranger reports that many of the comments on this new site -- comments promoted on the front page of the SF Weekly's web site -- are in fact promos for SF Weekly advertisers, written by SF Weekly ad staff. The Stranger notes:

The majority of Likeme’s reviews—which appear on 12 VVM websites, next to editorial content about the businesses—are written by ad representatives for VVM. The reviews, which are exclusively positive, focus on businesses that advertise in VVM papers.

For example, if you search for a review of Nick’s Crispy Tacos on the San Francisco Weekly’s site, a review from Likeme user LaraW is prominently displayed on the San Francisco Weekly’s page for the restaurant under the heading “The Inside Word on Nick’s Crispy Tacos.”

“If you’re looking for a great midweek activity that doesn’t cost a fortune, this is a great place to go,” LaraW gushes. “The crowd is always fun and the food is awesome.”

“Lara W” is actually Lara Weiss, the advertising coordinator for the San Francisco Weekly, where Nick’s Crispy Tacos advertises.

That's pretty darn sleazy. Again, from the Stranger:

VVM isn’t the first company to engage in this practice, referred to by industry watchdogs as “astroturfing.” Companies such as Sony, Microsoft, and Philip Morris have all built fake grassroots campaigns to promote their own products or slam competitors.

“I think [VVM’s] first obligation is to be honest and transparent,” says Kelly McBride, ethics leader at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. “You lose your marketability when you allow people with an agenda to post. And clearly the ad reps have an agenda: They want to make their clients happy.”

McBride adds, “When you create the false impression yourself… that’s really, really bad. It’s inherently dishonest, and I’d think it undermines your credibility.”

So what's up here? Well, I emailed everyone I could think of at the Weekly and VVM, starting with the top editorial guy, executive editor Mike Lacey, who never returns my calls or emails anyway, but what the hell. I also emailed Executive Vice President Scott Spear, Executive Associate Editor Andy Van De Voorde, Weekly publisher Josh Fromson and Weekly editor Tom Walsh. Only my old pal Andy got back to me; he sent along this link. The argument:

As with any new web product you create or partner with, you give it to your friends and family to test drive

Still seems awfully misleading, especially for a media company that loves to criticize everyone else's ethics.

By Amanda Witherell and Tim Redmond

It would be easy to just ignore last week's SF Weekly story on
San Francisco's energy policy.

The piece was exactly what we've come to expect from the Weekly - a direct attack on progressive San Francisco. It used all the buzzwords - "risky," "radical," "scheme." It selectively chose facts and presented them without context.

But stuff like this sticks around, and people read it, so somebody has to set the record straight.

The running theme of the piece, by Peter Jamison, is that Community Choice Aggregation, an energy plan that would allow the city to be the wholesale buyer and provider of power to residents, comes with a high risk. In an effort to get greener power, the article charges, the city may wind up raising electric rates - "which could have a crippling impact on the city's poorest residents."

Of course, PG&E is going to raise electricity rates every year for the foreseeable future, and high PG&E rates are already having a crippling impact on poor people, small businesses and the local economy. But that's not addressed in the story.

The truth is, CCA is only "risky" if you (a) assume that PG&E, which has been in and out of bankruptcy and continues to seek rate hikes, will somehow be a risk-free source of energy in the future and (b) assume that there's no risk whatsoever to continuing to rely almost entirely on nuclear power and fossil fuels for our energy needs.

By Tim Redmond

The Obama policy on open government is really remarkable, and the memo his press secretary sent out goes far beyond what I've seen from almost any political official. Check it out:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release January 21, 2009

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

SUBJECT: Freedom of Information Act

A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency. As Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." In our democracy, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which encourages accountability through transparency, is the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open Government. At the heart of that commitment is the idea that accountability is in the interest of the Government and the citizenry alike.

The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public.

All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.

The presumption of disclosure also means that agencies should take affirmative steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests from the public. All agencies should use modern technology to inform citizens about what is known and done by their Government. Disclosure should be timely.

So I'm wondering: Perhaps the Honorable Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco, should send out a similar memorandum to city agencies. It could say, for example:

The San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.

I asked Nathan Ballard, the mayor's press secretary, about that, and here's what he told me. (Those of you have have tangled with the mayor's office over public records, please hold your puke):

We wholeheartedly agree with the President on this issue. The mayor has
charged my office with handling sunshine requests for the executive branch
of city government, and he has directed us to cooperate swiftly and
comprehensively to all sunshine requests, and to err on the side of
openness.

Coulda fooled me.

I eagerly await the Newsom Sunshine Memo.

SEIU's Andy Stern (left) is clashing with UHW's Sal Rosselli (Guardian photo of Rosselli by Charles Russo)
By Steven T. Jones

A high-stakes feud between United Healthcare Workers and its parent union, Service Employees International Union, reached a critical point today when SEIU’s International Executive Board approved a set of findings essentially accusing UHW of insubordination and financial irregularities and threatening to take over UHW if it doesn’t atone for its perceived sins within five days.

As the Guardian has reported, the conflict revolves around a power struggle between SEIU head Andy Stern, who has been seeking to consolidate power within the international, and UHW head Sal Rosselli (based out of the union’s Oakland office), who is seeking to preserve the autonomy of SEIU locals and affiliates, particularly his own.

UHW spokesperson Sadie Crabtree says the union’s executive board will be meeting soon to discuss how to respond to SEIU, which is threatening to take over UHW with a trusteeship within five days unless UHW agrees in writing to abide by an SEIU decision merging UHW’s long-term care workers into other SEIU locals, publicizes this decision to its members, purges its database of names allegedly pilfered from SEIU, and agrees to a fiscal audit by SEIU and to follow SEIU orders.

“The decision reaffirms that in SEIU, ‘justice’ means injustice for all those who disagree with Stern and his cronies,” UHW said in a press release, while SEIU put out a statement that, “SEIU leaders believe this is a moment of history to change this country, and we believe this decision offers an opportunity to join together everyone in SEIU to change America.”

You can read the relevant documents on the case here. Stay tuned to this blog for the latest developments in this unfolding story and grab next week’s Guardian for a more detailed analysis of the conflict.

By Steven T. Jones

Just in time for tomorrow's dueling San Francisco abortion demonstrations, President Barack Obama today signed an executive order lifting the ban on U.S. funding going to family planning groups that perform abortions or provide counseling on the procedure, once again lifting the country out of the Christian fundamentalist dark ages.

The ban was first imposed by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, then rescinded by President Bill Clinton, then reinstated by President George W. Bush. Although not unexpected, the timing of Obama's action is sure to buoy the spirits of demonstrators with the Bay Area Coalition for Our Reproductive Rights, which for the last five years has countered the massive Walk for Life, in which anti-abortion organizers bus in thousands of conservative church-goers (and their disgusting pictures of mangled fetuses) from throughout the Western U.S.

By Tim Redmond

Here's some very good news from someone who is not my favorite politician: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pushing to repeal the Bush tax cuts, two years before they expire.

We're talking about a lot of money here -- $226 billion. And all coming from the top 1 percent of the richest people in America.

By Becca Frank and Paula Connelly

Getting around on Inauguration Day was no easy feat. We learned our lesson two days prior when we attempted to attend the Inaugural concert and only left enough time for a commute on a normal day, missing it completely. Everything was more difficult than we bargained for.

The historic inauguration of Barack Obama broke records by packing almost 2 million people into a space that could comfortably accommodate less than half of that. It was crowded, confusing, cold, and a complete mess – but we just loved the experience, for reasons that we’ve been pondering and discussing with friends since our return yesterday.

By Tim Redmond

Foreclosures can be tough on tenants, and some people are facing evictions. But even if the bank doesn't toss you out, the previous owner might have stopped paying the utility bills, leaving you with no electricity.

CIty Attorney Dennis Herrera has weighed in with an opinion (PDF) asserting that it's illegal to shut off power to a tenant after a foreclosure. PG&E can get fines $1,000 a day for cutting off your power. There's info there on how you can fight back.

By Tim Kingston

Martin Delaney, who died Jan. 23, had more lives than one could imagine. The word “Zelig” has even been used. Delaney was an AIDS activist, the founder of Project Inform, a thorn in the side of the Government, an HIV treatment smuggler, a disreputable associate of the bad boys of Level 242, the creator of a cuddly corporate mascot (we still can’t talk about this), but more than anything else he was an inspiration with a wicked sense of humor and a talent for spurring people onto activism.

It seems ages ago now. HIV was AIDS and a death sentence in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. There were few drugs, but Martin Delaney inspired people to stay alive and active. “What stands out is the extent to which Marty traveled from city to city when there was no hope,” said Curtis Ponzi, AIDS activist and early collaborator with Delaney. “He went places where there was no hope, not L.A., not San Francisco. He went places where people had no help, and he spoke about hope. He spoke about the need to get treated and tested, and that there were things you could do, when everyone else was saying pack up your bags and get ready to die. He was a lion.”

Delaney died at 63 of liver cancer, brought on by cirrhosis caused by Hepatitis B, the disease that first brought him to California from Chicago in 1978 for an experimental treatment. The treatment worked and cleared the disease, but the damage had been done, although he lived far longer than he would have otherwise. It is entirely possible that early experience with an experimental treatment gave him a foundation of hope when everything else looked damned to failure in the early days of HIV.

By Tim Redmond

Nice work by Matier and Ross reporting on cracks in the Bay Bridge welds. I found the comments of Caltrans officials a bit alarming:

After consulting with a structural steel expert from Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, Caltrans officials concluded the decks will be safe, and that the earlier problems were the result of strict weld standards that essentially allowed for no cracks. In other words, a few minor cracks are OK.

Okay, I'm not an expert in structural steel fabrication and welding, but my brother is in the construction biz and is an AWS-certified welder. He's obviously not in Shanghai, and he didn't look at the panels, but he did tell me one thing:

"A few minor cracks are not okay."

Welding is about joining two pieces of metal together. If there's a crack in the weld, "it's going to lead to more cracks," he told me. "Structural welds should have no cracks at all."

Makes sense to me.

Newsom and his wife with Francois Lacote, "the Father of the TGV." Photo courtesy of the Mayor's Office of Communications.
By Steven T. Jones

While the San Francisco Board of Supervisors today wrestles with deep budget cuts and the uphill battle for calling a June special election for new revenue measures, Mayor Gavin Newsom will be wrapping up a five-day trip to Paris and packing up to once again jet over to Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum.
And all this international jet-setting during this time of crisis follows weeks of gallivanting all over California to build support for his long-shot run for governor. This is the same mayor who rejects the June special election because, as press secretary Nate Ballard told us a couple weeks ago, “It’s not fully baked. It will take a citywide coalition (a la Prop A) to win something like this and the coalition just hasn't been built yet.”
Might I humbly suggest that the reason that coalition (which would require buy-in from the business community, a key Newsom constituency) hasn’t been built yet is that our mayor is more concerned with taking free trips to Europe and moving past San Francisco than he is on running this troubled city.
To be fair, yesterday he did take a ride on France’s high-speed rail, the TGV, and released a statement calling for federal money to help bring California’s version of high-speed rail into the Transbay Terminal, saying, “Including the rail box as part of the terminal construction is necessary for this grand vision to be realized.”
Today, he met with representatives of Velib, Paris’s rent-a-bike program that has 20,000 bikes, as well as some environmental ministers. And he used the occasion to remotely announce plans to start a bike-sharing service here in San Francisco...with a whopping 50 bikes, at a cost of almost $1 million (up to $500,000 to start and $450,000 annually to operate), all going to Clear Channel. And that's assuming this administration actually follows through on this promise, and finds the money to do so.
“Bike sharing will help connect thousands of residents and commuters to their workplaces and shopping destinations by providing bikes that they can easily borrow,” Newsom said. “This bike sharing pilot project will allow us to test and perfect the bikes and technology that will be used in our citywide network.”
So, while San Francisco may have to shut down environmental programs and social services and anything else that Newsom isn't using to campaign for governor, at least our celebrity mayor is still out there, somewhere, representing this city.

Supervisor David Campos sent a clear message at the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) meeting on Jan. 23, emphasizing that he was eager to move beyond the delays that have hindered progress on Community Choice Aggregation. Commissioners Michael Bornstein and Ross Mirkarimi -- who represents District 5 on the Board of Supervisors -- echoed his concerns, along with an array of community members who turned out to speak during the public-comment session. Meanwhile, a few members of the public warned that further delays might amount to missing the boat on federal funding for alternative-energy programs, which the Obama administration is expected to make available in the near future.

Campos, who represents District 9 on the Board of Supervisors, is also the newest LAFCo commissioner. The city agency is charged with monitoring and advising the San Francisco Public Utility Commission’s efforts to develop and implement a Community Choice Aggregation program, which was mandated in 2004 by the Board of Supervisors to help ensure the “provision of clean, reasonably priced, and reliable electricity.” A CCA program would allow the city and county of San Francisco to become its own wholesale power purchaser for citizens. The plan includes targets for purchasing power generated from renewable resources such as wind and solar, with a goal of 100 percent clean energy by 2040. But the process of getting CCA off the ground has been moving along at a snail pace.

By Steven T. Jones

San Francisco City Hall is packed with people waiting to testify about Mayor Gavin Newsom's midyear budget cuts and the need for a special election in June for new revenue measures. The Board of Supervisors chamber is filled to capacity, with another few hundred people filling the overflow room in the North Light Court.
Usually, public testimony is taken at the committee level rather than at the full board, but Sup. Chris Daly, who gathered the mayor's unilateral cuts into his own legislative package, opted to skip the committee and convene the full board as a Committee of the Whole to give the cuts a full public airing.
Labor leaders and community-based groups took the opportunity to turn out their supporters in the hundreds, many wearing the purple shirts of the public employee union SEIU Local 1021, with slogans that include, "Got Public Health?"
Testimony should last for hours. The supervisors should earn their pay today while Newsom does Paris. On the special election proposal, they'll need eight votes today to move it forward to next week, when the board will discuss what specific measures to place on the ballot.

Text by Sarah Phelan

Melissa Nix says she has not seen the report that French investigators recently completed, ruling that her ex-boyfriend Hugues de la Plaza was murdered in his Hayes Valley apartment on Linden Avenue in the wee hours of June 2, 2007

“I was told about it by Hugues’ father, Francois.” Nix said.

But she believes that the SFPD’s suggestion that de la Plaza's death was a suicide—a suggestion floated out early on in the investigation—is part of a systemic problem that leads all the way back to Mayor Gavin Newsom.

“It was under Mayor Newsom’s guidance and supervision that this happened,” Nix said. “May be there are problems with police workers or the homicide department, but the Mayor has the ability to call upon Chief Heather Fong and her officers any time.”

“Someone has not done their work and I don’t believe it’s the French,” Nix added, claiming that critical forensic evidence went untested for a year, that neighbors were not interviewed in a timely fashion and that vital evidence was not collected.

“I lay the blame not only at the feet of the SFPD, but also at the feet of Gavin Newsom,” Nix said.

Noting that Newsom “incidentally happens to be in Paris right now,” Nix added, “So, what is the Mayor’s priority? Moonlighting as an international celebrity or leading the people of San Francisco?”

By Steven T. Jones

Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern this afternoon executed his threat to take over the Oakland-based United Healthcare Workers and oust its defiant leadership team, formally placing UHW under a trusteeship.

“Today we bring an end to a sad chapter in the life [sic] a local union with great members, whose leadership lost their way, engaged in serious financial wrongdoing, refused to end their attempts to subvert the democratic processes of this union and failed to take action against a reported decertification effort,” Stern wrote in a prepared statement.

UHW head Sal Rosselli was careful to avoid advocating a decertification effort to divorce UHW for its SEIU parent during interviews with reporters yesterday (for more of this point, see my story in tomorrow’s Guardian), but that’s a real possibility now that Stern has ousted the leaders of their fiercely loyal union, precisely because they were doing the will of members in opposing an SEIU-ordered reorganization.

“Today’s action by Andy Stern imposing a trusteeship against the members of United Healthcare West has the effect of declaring martial law against those advocating for the right to vote and other democratic principles in their own union. UHW has rejected this imposition,” UHW wrote in a public statement.

Sources say they’re now a standoff between the rival union branches at UHW’s Oakland office. We’ll have more on this battle here tomorrow.

By Rebecca Bowe

About 150 labor representatives and health-service providers turned out at last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting to sound off on drastic budget cuts that many said would weaken an already-strained safety net for populations who are most in need. For more than four hours, representatives from homeless-advocacy groups; clinics serving the uninsured, sex workers or other disenfranchised populations; youth organizations that strive to keep kids off the street; labor-union representatives; stressed-out hospital staffers and many others gave the board an earful. The overwhelming majority urged the Board of Supervisors to approve a special election for June 2, which would give voters an opportunity to decide whether to establish new taxes as a way of generating revenue, rather than relying solely on deep cuts to solve the city’s budget woes.

The city is facing a budgetary crisis of unprecedented scale, with a daunting $576 million deficit. When Mayor Gavin Newsom appeared before the supervisors last December to ask for their cooperation in tackling the budget shortfall, he described it as arguably the most daunting crisis the city has seen since the Great Depression. (Newsom was attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland yesterday.)

While the members of the board put off the decision as to whether or not to actually hold a special election, they did pass a measure allowing for the option to stay open. With Supervisors Alioto-Pier, Chu and Elsbernd voting no, the board approved an emergency measure to waive regular election procedures that would have prevented the tax measure from being placed on a June 2 ballot.

Nor did the board vote on an amended budget package, which was introduced by Supervisor Chris Daly to counter Mayor Gavin Newsom’s mid-year budget cuts. Daly’s list of alternative cuts targeted management-level positions, mayoral communications staff and funding for the opera, ballet and symphony in an effort to free up funds that could then be diverted to sectors such as public health.

Instead of adopting Daly’s amended list of cuts, supervisors voted 6-5 on a motion -- called by Supervisor Sean Elsbernd -- to send the whole thing back to the Budget & Finance Committee for a closer look. “All of this needs to be analyzed,” Elsbernd said after questioning a few management-level cuts included in the list. “To push this forward today without total understanding of the impact of each and every one of these -- and these are just the ones I’ve caught while sitting here! -- God knows what else is in there. I’m just saying, let’s have this fully vetted.” Supervisors Alioto-Pier, Chiu, Chu, Dufty, Elsburnd and Maxwell supported the motion.

That left an interesting and somewhat mixed message about the politics of the new board. Supervisors Dufty and Maxwell, who will be the swing votes on anything that requires a supermajority (to override a mayoral veto) stayed with the progressives on the vote for a June election. But Chiu – elected board president entirely with progressive support – sided with the mayor’s allies and the moderates on the budget re-allocation vote.

We’ll have to see how this new calculus plays out in the next few weeks.

Sal Rosselli, Guardian Photo by Charles Russo.

By Steven T. Jones

There’s a new union in town, National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW), which was formed today by the United Healthcare Workers leadership team that was yesterday ousted by UHW’s parent union, Service Employees International Union. NUHW might as well stand for the New UHW.
SEIU has imposed a trusteeship on UHW, which involved suspending local bylaws, taking over UHW lists and contractual obligations, formally kicking out more than 70 elected UHW leaders, and appointing as trustees two SEIU executive vice presidents: David Regan and Eliseo Medina.
But UHW leaders continue to occupy the union’s Oakland headquarters, which they’ve used as the base of operations to launch the new union that they hope will be populated by many of UHW’s 150,000 members, who must vote to disaffiliate with SEIU to join the new union.
"As a healthcare workers union, NUHW is committed to continuing the tradition of a member-led, democratically controlled union," ousted UHW head Sal Rosselli said in a prepared statement. "There are lot of things that we still have to figure out, but we know NUHW will be all about accountability to the members, democratic-decision-making, organizing the unorganized and winning improvements for healthcare workers and the patients and residents we serve."
In a conference call with reporters, Regan and Medina blasted the Rosselli team for promoting the schism with SEIU, which had sought to transfer 65,000 long-term care workers from UHW to another SEIU local, something Rosselli says his members urged him to resist. “That battle ended yesterday,” Medina said, while Regan noted that, “It’s sad when a group of local officers lose their way.”
SEIU leaders hope to put the conflict behind them and move forward together to fight deep cuts being proposed in California’s budget, but it’s an open question how many UHW members are going to resist the change and follow Rosselli out the door, something that will become more clear in the coming weeks.

By Tim Redmond

Interesting how the mayor tries to spin away his dismissal of Margaret Brodkin, the feisty and highly respected director of the Department of Children, Youth and their Families. Here's the mayor's press release:

Margaret Brodkin to take new position as Director of New Day for Learning

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Today Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that he has asked
Maria Su, current Deputy Director of the Department of Children, Youth and
their Families (DCYF), to become the Acting Director of DCYF.

“During Maria’s tenure, DCYF has become one of San Francisco’s most
respected and influential organizations, making children one of the city’s
highest public policy priorities,” said Mayor Newsom. “She has overseen the
department’s core service areas, including early care and education, family
support, health and nutrition, out-of-school programs, violent response and
youth workforce development, as well as the Wellness Centers, Beacons and
Transitional Age Youth initiatives.”

After over four years of service as Director of DCYF, Margaret Brodkin is
leaving her position in order to become Director of the New Day for
Learning Initiative. The Initiative is a collaboration among city, school
and community partners, and is being funded, in part, by the Mott
Foundation.

"New Day for Learning is an important initiative, and one that will put San
Francisco in the national spotlight of education reform and city and school
partnerships,” said Mayor Newsom. “As the Director of New Day for Learning,
Margaret will continue her pioneering work in local child advocacy, and on
improving the lives of every child and youth in San Francisco.”

Sounds like Brodkin just decided it was time to take another job.

But wait: Here's what Brodkin told her supporters today:

Dearest Colleagues,

Although he has praised my service and called me a "superstar," Mayor Newsom has asked me to leave DCYF. Today will be my last day as Director. I am disappointed to be unable to complete the work that I have begun, but I leave behind a talented and dedicated DCYF staff, a broad network of wonderful partners, and many exciting projects in the works. I hope DCYF will continue to thrive

In other words, Newsom fired her. Why? Well, I haven't been able to reach Brodkin to see if she wants to tell her side of the story. But let me speculate for a moment.

I think it's fair to say the Mayor Newsom will be taking aim in the next few months at all of the set-asides in the city budget. I think he is looking toward a November ballot measure that will include "budget reform" -- which means no more special earmarked programs.

One of the major earmarks he'll try to eliminate: The Children's Fund. That was Brodkin's pet project and she was instrumental in getting it passed. I suspect the mayor, who hates dissent in the ranks, didn't want to go forward seeking a "reform" in funding for kids programs that his own DCYF chief would loudly and visibly opppose.

Just my suspicion.

I have had a few minor clashes with Brodkin since she went to City Hall, but I have to say that she has been one of the single most tireless and dedicated champions of children and families in San Francisco, has devoted her life to the cause and was one of the few members of the Newsom administration who cared more about the cause than about political ambition. I suspect this new gig is just temporary, and she'll soon be back raising hell on the streets, where we need her.

Text by Sarah Phelan

Is "Slim" really Mr. Slim’s real name? And who is this scary-sounding guy, anyways? News junkies should probably be asking these questions now that Carlos Slim Helú has loaned $250 million to the New York Times, and may ultimately take over the financially troubled company, which reportedly is $1.1 billion in debt.

When I first read Mr. Slim’s name, coupled with the phrase “the Mexican billionaire,” I thought there was no way this could be his real name. It had to be a nickname, a scary one at that, evoking comic book-style images in which a burly mobster darkens the newspaper's door with a long shadow, a cloud of cigar smoke and the threat that “Mr. Slim intends to slim down the newsroom, starting with your left pinkies, if he doesn't see some profits soon.”

But while it’s true that Mr. Slim is looking for a 10 percent profit at the Times—a scary sounding goal for reporters in an increasingly shrinking media world —it turns out Slim really is Mr. Slim’s real name, albeit a modification of the name of his Lebanese father, Youssif Salim, a Maronite Catholic, who emigrated to Mexico at the tender age of 14.

Upon reaching Mexico, Mr. Slim’s father changed his name from Youssif Slim to Julián Slim Haddad, adding his mother's surname, Haddad, for good measure, as per Mexican-naming customs.

As the perhaps future king of the NYT, Slim, 69, already exerts influence on the telecommunications industry in Mexico and much of Latin America, and may well be the richest man on Earth, with a net worth of $60 billion, having possibly surpassed Warren Buffet in the recent global economic turmoil. All of which makes me fear that there is a fat chance that Slim will be suffering expanding word counts at the New York Times, any time soon.

By Tim Redmond

This is a wonderful little moment in history. I particularly like the fact that the Examiner editor says "we're not going to make any money off this."

And of course, also the comment

This crazy machine could revolutionize the way in which millions of men beat off

Walker, Kim

By Tim Redmond

Chris Daly will be the district six supervisor for the next two years (minus a couple of weeks), but already the dance to replace him is underway -- with some surprising names floating around.

It's no secret that Debra Walker is running, and with her long record on land-use and planning issues and her LGBT community leadership, she starts out as the leading progressive in the race. SOMA activist Jim Meko has joined the fray, too.

And the rumor mill is abuzzin with talk that School Board member Jane Kim, who by all accounts has a bright political future, is considering the race. Kim recently moved to D6, and we've heard from a number of people who've been contacted by Kim supporters about a possible supervisorial bid. Kim herself is a bit more coy: "I'm not announcing a campaign," she told me. But she didn't entirely rule it out: "Right now, I'm not a candidate. I haven't decided what I'm going to do in 2010; everything's on the table."

And then there's Michael Yarne, who last year left Martin Builders to take a job with the Mayor's Office of Economic Development. Mayor Newsom doesn't have a clear horse in that race yet (Rob Black, who works for the Chamber of Commerce, may run again, but he lost last time and is clearly a Chamber toadie, so his hopes in the liberal district aren't that good). Yarne told us that he's been contacted by people who think he'd be a good candidate, and he hasn't entirely ruled it out, but "there's no way I could run right now because I don't live in the district." Yarne rents in D9.

For my money, Kim is one of the brighest young stars in local politics, and she ought to stay on the school board, where she's doing a great job, for another term, then start looking at other offices.

Newsom rode a rental bike as we chatted during Bike to Work Day a few years ago.
By Steven T. Jones

I was already cranking up my criticism of Mayor Gavin Newsom in this post when he announced his anemic bike-sharing proposal – 50 bikes for San Francisco versus the 20,000 in Paris, from where he made the announcement – so I wondered if perhaps I was being a little hard on the proposal. You know, poisoned by my own venom.
It seemed pretty ridiculous to spend $1 million to start a program that nobody could rely on considering there would be less than 10 bikes at each of the five locations that they’re proposing. So I listened to the chatter on the CarFree list (people who promote biking and would support a legitimate bike-sharing program), checked sites such as SF Streetsblog, and did some interviews.
And so now I can say, with great confidence, that this is indeed a really dumb and self-serving idea that has everything to do with Newsom being able to claim he started something sexy like bike sharing and nothing to do with actually promoting bicycling in San Francisco.
Hell, Blazing Saddles (the rental company that lends Newsom a ride for Bike to Work Day, the one day a year that he pedals) rents 200-700 bicycles per day in San Francisco depending on the season and weather, according to someone I spoke with there. So how exactly is the Clear Channel-administered 50 bikes going to make any difference?
MTA spokesperson Judson True did defend the proposal when I called him, telling me the 50 bikes was, “based on Clear Channel’s experience in other cities getting people used to the idea.” Clear Channel runs the only other one in the U.S., Washington DC's shitty little 150-bike program, unlike the thousands of bikes in real programs in cities around the world. True also said the high cost is based partly on renting private property because the bike injunction, which will be lifted later this year, prohibits bike improvements on public property.
Which, to me, sounds like even more proof that Newsom decided to roll this out now because it fits into his larger political plans, beating other U.S. cities like New York that are doing actual planning to roll out real bike sharing programs. And so it goes with Mayor Press Release.

P.S. See you all at Critical Mass tomorrow.

By Tim Redmond

Why is it so hard to get a budget deal out of Sacramento? While the gov blames the Legislature, let's take a look at why it's almost impossible to get Republican members of the state Assembly or Senate to vote for a tax hike.

Case study: Assembly Member Anthony Adams, R-Hesperia.

Adams emerged from a Republican caucus meeting a few days back to say that a budget deal would require both sides to give in on some hot-button issues. The Democrats would have to accept major cuts in popular programs -- and the GOP would have to accept some tax increases.

He is now in serious political trouble.

Two popular right-wing L.A. radio nuts, John and Ken, put out a "call to battle stations", lambasted Adams for 45 screeching minutes on the air, then put a graphic of the Assemblymember's severed head on a stick on their website. Adams admits that voting for even modest tax hikes, as a part of a broader budget that includes massive spending cuts, will probably be the end of his political career.

"This," Assembly member Tom Ammiano told me, "is the shit we're up against." The radical anti-tax crew in the GOP is preparing to trash, abuse, challenge and if necessary recall any Republican we dares talk of taxes. And since the Legislative districts in California are so successfully gerrymandered to give Democrats more power, the Republican seats are VERY Republican and these anti-tax nuts have a lot of power.

That's why the two-thirds majority for approving a budget is crippling this state.

By Tim Redmond

... Is utter bullshit.

The mayor proclaimed that he's going to try harder to work with the Board of Supervisors, and that he sees David Chiu as much more of a potential ally than outgoing board prez Aaron Peskin -- but already we're seeing what that means. Consider:

The supervisors voted 8-0 last week to nominate Ross Mirkarimi for a coveted slot on the California Coastal Commission. It's an important job, and requires someone with a strong comittment to environmental issues. So what does Newsom do? He ignores the board vote, refuses to defer to the unanimous wishes of Mirkarimi's colleagues, and instead puts forward Michela Alioto-Pier.

That's Alioto-Pier, who loves developers and is among the worst environmental votes on the board. Alioto-Pier, who got appointed to the Golden Gate Bridge District a while back then missed half the meetings. Alioto-Pier, who would never get the support of more than two of her colleagues for any kind of important or high-profile job.

The final decision is in the hands of State Sen. President Darryl Steinberg, who has a few more pressing things to think about at the moment.

But the Sierra Club is supporting Mirkarimi. Assembly member Tom Ammiano is supporting Mirkarimi. State Sen. Leland Yee is supporting Mirkarimi. I haven't been able to reach Sen. Mark Leno yet, but he ought to be supporting Mirkarimi.

Which leaves the mayor defying the supes, defying most of the state Legislative delegation and pushing an unqualified candidate in what can only be an F.U. to the supervisors he so recently pledged to work with. (I emailed his press office and asked why Newsom did this, but they haven't gotten back to me.)

Some spirit of cooperation.

UPDATE: Leno tells me he is supporting Mirkarimi. But there's a new twist: The mayor CAN'T nominate Alioto-Pier for the Coastal Commission. He doesn't have the legal authority. It turns out that in a city and county like San Francisco, nominations can only be made by the supervisors. Government Code Section 50279.2 states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, in any county in which there is only one incorporated city, the legislative body of such city is hereby created and shall serve as the city selection committee

Newsom didn't check before he put the word out, and now he looks like a fool. In fact, I'm told his office is now trying to pretend they never nominated Alioto-Pier in the first place. (Not that the mayor ever worried about things like state law in managing his office.

Hell of a job our guy is doing running this town.

By Steven T. Jones

The takeover of United Healthcare Workers by Service Employees International was completed today as SEIU finally took physical control of UHW’s Oakland headquarters and changed the locks following a final standoff that had to be mediated by Oakland Police officers who were called to the scene.

“We went to the office and we asked to be able to do the work we need to do,” David Regan, who SEIU appointed as a trustee overseeing UHW, told the Guardian. But they were turned away by UHW members still loyal to ousted president Sal Rosselli, who has formed a new rival union. “The police came and we sorted it all out.”

“We have been contacting tens of thousands of our members from all over the state over last few days and talking to them about the core work we should be doing,” Regan said, noting how important it is right now to present a united worker front to counteract deep proposed budget cuts by the state and its 58 counties.

SEIU took possession of UHW’s Los Angeles office shortly after the trusteeship was imposed on Tuesday afternoon, “and it’s a mess,” said SEIU spokesperson Michelle Ringuette. In their calls to members, she said that “a silent majority” are anxious to get past this union turf and aren’t likely to disaffiliate and join Rosselli’s new union.
But John Borsos, a spokeperson for the ousted UHW leaders, said members want a say in their union and “I believe thousands of current UHW members will seek to become part of this new union,” known at National Union of Healthcare Workers.

Both Ringuette and Regan downplayed the Oakland standoff, saying members are more important that offices. “But at the day, the reason the office is important is because it has tools we need to run the union effectively,” Regan said, citing membership data, payroll records, and files on ongoing contract negotiations as examples.

Check back here last and look in next week's Guardian for more, including a report from Guardian intern Joe Sciarrillo, who was at the scene in Oakland (but who's now following another protest of the murder of BART rider Oscar Grant after the officer who shot him was paroled)

By Steven T. Jones

San Francisco’s business community has launched a coordinated campaign against calling a special election in June for new revenue measures, which the Board of Supervisors will consider at Tuesday’s meeting.

The board voted 8-3 this week to declare a fiscal emergency and consider various tax measures to help offset $118 million in midyear budget cuts made by Mayor Gavin Newsom and to close a deficit for the next fiscal year projected to be more than $550 million. All eight supervisors will be needed to call the election.

But the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and Scott Hauge (who didn't return my calls for comment) of Small Business California have both blasted out calls to oppose the move, using the same talking points and nearly identical language that complains, “City Hall is rushing to hold a June 2009 Special Election so it can put proposals for hundreds of millions of dollars in new taxes before San Francisco voters.”

In reality, current proposals call for less than $100 million in new taxes. Business leaders and Mayor Gavin Newsom (who also opposing the June election) have known since at least Halloween about the size of this deficit (which is roughly half of the city’s discretionary spending) and could have worked with progressives on the procedural issues they’re citing. So this has nothing to do with “a rush,” but is one more example of fiscal conservatives offering knee-jerk opposition to any new taxes.

Still, the business community will be putting intense pressure on the board, particularly the swing votes: Supervisors Bevan Dufty and Sophie Maxwell. So if you think the people should have a say in sparing some of the deepest cuts to city services by making rich people, drivers, or profitable businesses pay a little more in taxes, now’s the time to make your voice heard.

editors note: updated information at the end

By Andrea de Brito

When local author Stephen Elliot saw a sign reading "American Apparel: Coming Soon" in a vacant storefront window near 21st and Valencia two weeks ago, he told himself: "What? No way!"

Within 24 hours, he had whipped up a Stop American Apparel website and spent $750 – money that he didn't really have -- to print thousands of posters reading "Your Mission—Not Theirs" (though that side of Valencia Street technically belongs to the Castro).

You can see the simply designed posters in many storefront windows along Valencia Street, where the overwhelming majority of independent businesses—including Ritual Roasters, Modern Times Bookstore, Dog-Eared Books, Aquarius Records, and Borderlands Books— have taken a strong stand against the mega-chain, which boasts 200 outlets in 19 countries worldwide and is known for its ads featuring skinny teenage girls in skimpy cotton rags.

The issue has generated considerable discussion on the neighborhood blog MissionMission and in our past coverage.

"I do not want to live in a shopping mall," said Elliot, claiming residents he's interviewed were largely unaware of the imminent prospect of the chain's grand opening. Though the company's progressive position on fair labor practices and immigrant rights may blur the lines between good and evil, most opponents claim the campaign is not a crusade against American Apparel. It's a crusade against formula retail, already completely banned in several affluent commercial districts of San Francisco.