by Rebecca Bowe

This jar contains the debris picked up by a manta trawler, a device that skims the surface of the ocean, in a single hour.

The tall ship Kaisei has returned from its month-long voyage to the plastic garbage vortex swirling through the North Pacific Gyre, and the preliminary findings of the ocean researchers are something of a wake-up call.

“We trawled thousands of miles, and we tested surface samples across the whole distance,” said Doug Woodring, cofounder of Project Kaisei, created in May of 2008 to study and address the growing problem of marine debris. “Every single sample came up with plastic.”

“We barely scratched the surface,” added Woodring, who was speaking at a press conference at San Francisco’s South Beach Harbor on Sept. 1.

Project Kaisei is a project of the Ocean Voyages Institute, a Sausalito-based nonprofit founded in 1979. The voyage was conducted in partnership with the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, which sent a second research vessel, called the New Horizon, to collect samples of the marine debris for further study. The voyage was just the beginning of the mission, and now Scripps scientists have a good six months of lab analysis ahead to try and better understand the impact of plastic on the marine environment.

Text and photos by Sarah Phelan

SFPD Police Chief George Gascón reports on the results of a Tenderloin-based undercover drug operation.

On the way to today’s press conference at the Tenderloin Police Station, I bumped into the usual cast of characters—the guy in the wheelchair who flirts with everyone, the guy on the cell phone negotiating a payment plan for his debts, the woman talking in tongues as she crossed against the traffic at Eddy Street.

But absent from the melee was anyone selling drugs.

Maybe that was because of what the San Francisco Police Department is describing as an “intensive and ongoing narcotics enforcement operation in the Tenderloin district.”

This buy-bust operation, which began Aug.13, led to 302 arrests, officials said at today’s conference, which was attended by SFPD Chief George Gascón, District Attorney Kamala Harris, U.S. Attorney Joe Russoniello and F.B.I. Supervisory Special Agent Bryan Smith.

Mugshots of some of those arrested were on display at the Tenderloin Police Station.

By Wendi Jonassen and Tim Redmond

There’s a move in Sacramento to authorize BART to put its relatively weak police oversight process into action -- but the legislation is even weaker than BART’s cautious plan.

The BART Board approved a plan this summer, but can’t enact it without the state. BART was created by the Legislature as a special district, and lacks the power to create a police-oversight agency.
Assembly member Sandre Swanson (D-East Bay), is trying to get legislation through -- but there are a few major problems. For one thing, at the insistence of the police-lobbying group PORAC, the legislation at this point doesn’t allow the elected BART Board to overrule the police chief on discipline.

So the elected officials who run the agency will have no authority over rogue cops. That’s insane.

The other problem is that the legislative session is almost over – and the only way Swanson can pull this off is through a legislative maneuver. He tried to take existing bills that have been through both Assembly and Senate committees and “gut and strip” – that is, replace all the existing language with new language. But he couldn’t pull that off.

Now he has to ask for waivers and exceptions so a bill can be heard by the end of the legislative year. According to him, “this is almost nearly impossible. It is essentially trying to get six months of work done in two weeks.”

And Tom Ammiano, who has his own, much stronger bill to mandate civilian oversight for the BART police, isn’t going to support the Swanson effort. He wants the best model rather than pushing a weak bill forward, says Quintin Mecke, his press secretary.

Swanson wants to move forward with the parts of the BART plan that everyone agrees on: The creation of a police auditor and a citizen review mechanism.

He remains optimistic that one way or another, there will be a bill containing both the police auditor and a citizen review board sometime this week.

When asked about the claim that the bill is highly water-down, Swanson responded by saying this claim, “misses clear understanding of the legislative process.”

Essentially, Swanson wants to leave the weak portions of the bill to possible future amendments and more bills. The idea is to get at least something passed this year, with the goal of coming back later to strengthen it.

But with the power of the police lobby, it’s possible that a weak, watered-down bill will pass – and never get improved. That’s the worst possible option.

By Tim Redmond

Only a small handful of Democrats voted against the weak prison-reform bill that narrowly passed the state Assembly Aug. 31. Among those joining the entire GOP caucus: Fiona Ma of San Francisco.

Ma's always been a bit more conservative than her San Francisco colleagues, but this one is over the top: The bill was already watered down to be so mild that it won't even come close to making the cuts needed to balance the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation budget. Proposals calling for the early release of old and sick inmates (people very unlikely to re-offend) were stripped from the bill. Any reasonable approach to the prison crisis would include the early release of tens of thousands of inmates who are serving overly lengthy sentences for nonviolent crimes; all of these inmates will be released soon anyway, and the notion that allowing a drug offender to serve three and a half years instead of four will somehow impact public safety is nuts. But that wasn't even on the table; the final bill was designed not to scare away moderate Democrats.

Nevertheless, Ma voted no.

I couldn't reach her on the phone and she didn't respond directly to my email, which is unusual. But I did get a statement from her press spokesperson, Nick Hardeman, which reads as follows:

"While reducing costs is important to fix our budget crisis, we have to be responsible when it comes to public safety. If effective services are not in place as inmates re-enter society these cost savings will be pointless. As we make these reforms, our top priority should be to decrease recidivism rates and give individuals the appropriate tools to become productive members of society. We should not play budget politics with public safety and I would prefer a substantive, open process when making reforms of this magnitude."

Wait: "We should not play budget politics with public safety?" That sounds like a press release from the police lobbies.

Text and photos by Sarah Phelan

How can someone this pretty play so dirty?

Two weeks have passed since Mayor Gavin Newsom told me in person that he had every right to waive the attorney-client privilege in giving a confidential memo to the Chronicle.

And today---two weeks and many requests later-- the Mayor's Office finally sent a copy of this memo, which outlines llegal issues in connection with Sup. David Campos' proposed legislation to extend due process to undocumented youth.

Sup. David Campos at the Aug.18 rally in support of his legislation. That same day, Newsom, whose office sits directly above the rally, leaked the memo to the Chronicle. Two days later, Newsom claimed he waived attorney-client privilege, but he kept the rest of the media waiting two weeks before sharing the memo with anyone else.

I guess someone in the Mayor's Office finally got the other memo from the City Attorney’s Office--the one in which the City Attorney explains how the attorney client privilege cannot be reasserted once it’s been waived.

“You cannot un-ring the bell” is how it was explained to me two weeks ago. And no one in the City Attorney’s Office has told me anything different since.

But in the last two weeks, it has became painfully clear that Mayor Gavin Newsom and members of his staff feel entitled to play favorites in their treatment of the media. That's unjust and totally sucks, and here's why:

Up until this moment, the only people who have seen the memo have been the Mayor, members of the Board of Supervisors—and reporters at the Chronicle.

As a result, the only interpretation of what this memo says has been the Chronicle's. And their interpretation was an extremely negative assessment that included damning quotes from Newsom and seemed to amount to sending a free road map of how to sue San Francisco to any anti-immigrant rightwing nuts who have it in for our city and its progressive policies.

Newsom and the Chronicle are entitled to their opinions. But what Newsom is not entitled to do, once he claims he has waivered the attorney-client privilege, is make sure that no other media outlet has the opportunity to read the memo and then report on what it does and doesn't say.

But now that I have the memo in hand, I can really see just how dirty Newsom is playing around immigration reform.

As Angela Chan, staff attorney for the Asian Law Caucus, puts it, "The gist of the City Attorney's memo is that the City could get sued more by anti-immigrant groups. It doesn't say the City would lose. San Francisco is at the forefront of the civil and human rights movement, which is why it rightly takes on these kinds of issues."

And as Chan further points out, the City Attorney's memo does not point out the legal risks that the City is taking by allowing undocumented youth to be deported without due process.

Maybe that's because the City Attorney's office, understandably, has little or no experience of immigration law.

But those concerns have been outlined in a 20-page brief by the Asian Law Caucus and four other civil rights' groups that have tons of experience dealing with these issues.

Sadly, the Chronicle has only dedicated one sentence to what this civil rights brief says, even though it outlines legal issues that are just as important to the City's fiscal and legal well being.

Reached by phone, Sup. David Campos told me today that the Aug. 18 memo about his legislation identifies the challenges that the City could face under federal law.

"But those are challenges that apply to the whole concept of sanctuary, period," Campos said. "There's nothing new here."

"If anything," Campos added, "my legislation is arguably more legally defensible, because it's predicated on state law and its unique treatment of juveniles. So, I don't think that the way the Chronicle characterizes [the Campos proposal] is accurate. They are making it sound like my legislation makes the sanctuary ordinance politically less defensible."

As Campos notes, his proposal doesn't protect undocumented youth , if the court decide to charge them as adults.
"If a youth is charged of something so heinous that court decides to charge them as an adult, then they will be reported to ICE right away," Campos said. "We decided to have a very modest and conservative approach to address a lot of the public safety concerns that law enforcement would have."

Campos is also bummed that the Chronicle has never bothered to point out that a lot of legal memos are written, particularly when the city is doing something new and edgy.

As for why Newsom's decided to release the memo about Campos' proposal, Campos opined "People are terrified of this issue, and I can see why. I get a lot of hate mail, and this is not a way to promote your political career."

One last point for now: when I asked SFPD Chief Goerge Gascón's press officer Sgt. Lyn Tomioka to verify quotes he reportedly made in the Chronicle's Aug. 19 article, expressing concern that under the Campos legislation, "drug or even violent offenders could be released by judges on reduced charges in lieu of reporting them for possible deportation," Sgt. Tomoika replied that she has "suggested and Chief Gascón has agreed to read the entire Supervisor Campos legislation, and then give a statement."

I don't know about you, but my reaction in reading this reply was to think that it was unfair of Newsom to ask the Chief to comment on a memo about a piece of legislation that Gascón had not yet read.

Newsom and Gascón during the Chief's Aug. 21 swearing-in ceremony.

By Tim Redmond

Okay, this is pretty radical:

State Sen. Leland Yee has been a bill that would force the Cow Palace, a state-owned operation, to sell 13 acres of land to Daly City. Okay, we've got some problems with that, but basically, the idea is to force the Cow Palace folks to negotiate a deal with a developer for a long-term lease so that neighborhood can get a supermarket and some other amenities.

But now, at the last minute, with only days left in the legislative session, Yee is trying to amend the bill to authorize the sale of the entire site -- 63 acres of public land.

"We were hoping for a lease deal, but that hasn't happened," Adam Keigwin, Yee's press spokesperson, told me. "That neighborhood has no grocery store. The land is currently underutilized. The governor wants us to include the entire parcel in the bill."

So in cooperation with Gov. Schwarzenegger, Yee is preparing to allow the state to sell off 63 acres of public land. That's a huge site, a vast amount of immensely valuable property in one of the densest urban areas in America.

Joe Barkett, CEO of the Cow Palace, is (not surprisingly) upset: "The Cow Palace is an historic institution with wonderful memories for many people," he told me. "To try to sell it off in this manner is a disservice to the community."

Keigwin notes that the bill doesn't mandate that the Cow Palace be torn down; "all it would do is change the ownership." And that might not happen right away; "the governor's office agrees that this might not be the best time to sell."

But the governor and Yee are also looking for cash to address the horrifying budget deficity, and this is one potential source of millions and millions of dollars.

The problem is that once you sell public land, it's gone, forever. And with all the needs in San Francisco and Daly City -- affordable housing, parks, cultural facilities as well as a supermarket -- there ought to be a way to keep this in the public sector. I asked Keigwin about some sort of public development authority, and he agreed that was a nice idea, but "that's never happened at the state level."

Folks: This is a bad idea. I'm in full agreement that the site is underutilized, but I have this visceral opposition to selling off 63 acres of land to a private developer.

And if the Assembly goes along, this will happen in a matter of days.

Text and photos by Ariel Soto

"Honk for health care," shouted thousands of people gathered in front of City Hall last night as they showed their support for health care reform in the United States. The crowd included members from many organizations, including Single Payer Now, Organizing for America and young med-students who were out voicing their opinions on the necessary changes needed to fix our current failing health system.

By Just A Guy

Editors note: Just A Guy is an inmate in a California state prison. His reports run twice a week.

“We should not play politics with public safety.” That’s what Assembly member Fiona Ma states as part of her argument against the bill that proposed early releases as part of how California will make up for slashing $1.2 billion from the vast coffers of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Those coffers, incidentally, have more in them than do the coffers for higher education. Oddly, Ma is a Democrat out of San Francisco.

We live in a state that prides itself for its innovation, its technology and its forward thinking. These characteristics have made California great. But I don’t think that innovators and forward thinkers seem to be running the Assembly or Senate.

We are supposed to be progressive, so we decriminalize pot for medical use -- but ban gay marriage and pass laws like three strikes?

Forward thinkers, these politicians, so forward that even their hindsight is not 20-20 -- because three strikes is what got California into this big prison mess in the first place.

Don’t you remember all those stories about people getting life sentences for stealing bicycles and pizza?
What they really used three strikes (consciously or not) for is to create an industry out of crime and prisons, an industry in which thousands of families now are able to live the American dream and make their very adequate living – and the politicians can create long political lives for themselves by destroying many thousands of other dreams, at the public’s expense.

If public safety were really the number one priority of politicians and those who proclaim it, they would take off their broken glasses and go get a second opinion as to what the results of their pitiful budget and myopic laws are really resulting in: Less public safety in the future.

Amazing that we can see the results of harming the earth through abuse, that we know that if you smoke you’ll probably die, if you beat your kids they will probably beat their kids, etc .... Yet we can’t seem to see that if you spend more on prisons than on higher education, if you take away further money from K-12, from welfare and from health care, that you will be creating more of that, long term, which you say the public needs protection from.
If they were really concerned about your longterm safety, and not their political careers, they would vote for the lesser of two evils -- which is to let those people out now that are costing $50,000 a year, and apply those funds to the future of public safety. (I bet if you release 27,000 people and give them each $50,000 a year, not too many will come back!)

Ahh -- but what about the redundancies that would be created and the officers that would be laid off because they had to close seven or more prisons? You see the cycle folks, do you? It’s obvious, it’s plain, you can buy it two for one, 24/7/365 at Lenscrafters.

I wonder if Fiona Ma and the others voting against releases up for reelection next year are running on a tough on crime platform.

We should be tough on some crime, but often toughness is predicated on money (Dante Stallworth) and not on the crime.

We are hypocrites, us Californians. We every day we spend more on prisons than college, or have another person do any other day for a victimless crime.

Lastly .... more hypocrisy: Phillip Garrido may not be charged for some of the crimes he committed because the statute of limitations has passed and those crimes will never be prosecuted. But many in prison are doing life, or getting their sentences doubled or tripled, for crimes that happened 10, 20 or even 30 years ago. Why isn’t there a statute of limitations from your past?

Did you ever forgive the high school bully that picked on you because you had four eyes -- or are you going to hold that against him forever?

Move on, California. They have corrective surgery now -- and maybe that bully is your ophthalmologist.

By Tim Redmond

The New York Times has a great piece by Jean Edward Smith on why Obama needs to stop trying for a bipartisan health plan and a compromise that the moderates and conservatives can agree on:

This fixation on securing bipartisan support for health care reform suggests that the Democratic Party has forgotten how to govern and the White House has forgotten how to lead.

This was not true of Franklin Roosevelt and the Democratic Congresses that enacted the New Deal. With the exception of the Emergency Banking Act of 1933 (which gave the president authority to close the nation’s banks and which passed the House of Representatives unanimously), the principal legislative innovations of the 1930s were enacted over the vigorous opposition of a deeply entrenched minority. Majority rule, as Roosevelt saw it, did not require his opponents’ permission.

When Roosevelt asked Congress to establish the Tennessee Valley Authority to provide cheap electric power for the impoverished South, he did not consult with utility giants like Commonwealth and Southern. When he asked for the creation of a Securities and Exchange Commission to curb the excesses of Wall Street, he did not request the cooperation of those about to be regulated. When Congress passed the Glass-Steagall Act divesting investment houses of their commercial banking functions, the Democrats did not need the approval of J. P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs or Lehman Brothers.

From the start, the wrong people (that is, the insurance industry reps.) have been at the table. Now the president is going to Congress to make his case -- but he ought to have enough support to get a strong bill passed anyway.

And maybe he can start his speech with this report from the National Nurses Movement, which notes:

Researchers from the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee analyzed data reported by the insurers to the California Department of Managed Care. From 2002 through June 30, 2009, the six insurers rejected 45.7 million claims -- 22 percent of all claims.

The main point here:

Left hanging in the air is a bigger question. If the private insurers are not paying for care, why do we have private insurers?

By Tim Redmond

It's no surprise that the right-wing nuts are going after Van Jones, the Bay Area activist who is now Obama's green-jobs advisor. The loonies have picked up on the fact that Jones was one of 100 people (along with Daniel Ellsberg and Paul Hawken) who signed a letter raising questions about the government response to the 9/11 attacks. It's actually not that radical a letter; Indybay has posted it here.

But what amazes me is how quickly people who aren't typically considered wackos have bought into this -- take, for example, the former wife of the mayor of San Francisco, who appeared on Sean Hannity's show to denounce Jones with some bizarre claims:

GUILFOYLE: Well, that' s a problem. When you say, is there a problem with the vetting process? Clearly he wasn't vetted. All they had to do was go and ask a couple of questions in San Francisco about this individual. You know there's a problem when he's not even wanted in the city of San Francisco where I come from. OK?

HANNITY: That's a good point.

GUILFOYLE: That's a huge red flag right there. What is this man's qualification besides his anti-American theory? He's far left, radical.

HANNITY: No, he's a communist. I mean avowed.

GUILFOYLE: Yes.

CUPP: Self-avowed. Yes.

GUILFOYLE: Self-avowed communist. Why is he even in the White House? Is that the reward?

He's "not even wanted in San Francisco?" What? Van Jones is an icon in this town. Some people think he gets too much fawning press; nobody I know thinks he's unwanted.

And, um, self-avowed communist? Kimberly, that's so 50s. I know Van Jones, and I know some communists, and I can tell you that Van Jones -- for better or for worse -- is not a communist. Guilfoyle must know that, too -- in fact, there really aren't a whole lot of communists left, even in the Bay Area. In the 1980s, I used to see the Revolutionary Communist Party types at political events, but you hardly ever hear from them any more. Calling someone a communist these days doesn't even qualify as red-baiting; it's just nutty-mouth.

More:

HANNITY: All right. This is back in March of 2008. We examined this. He called on participants to take a pledge of resistance and — "Not in our name will we invade countries, bomb civilians, kill children, letting history take its course over the graves of the nameless."

Now, I mean, we can keep going, look at the comment that he made about white polluters steering poison into black communities.

CUPP: Right.

GUILFOYLE: Well, this is an individual that doesn't have the qualifications to be in the bizarre job that he's in. And it just raises the issue here about these czars gone wild. This is someone who actually just doesn't even like the United States of America, wants to reshape it, remake it into something that we would not even recognize, and what's so wrong with this country that we have an individual like this coming in, meddling in our affairs that has no idea what he is doing, who really is traitorous in his comments against this country.

Actually, I spent several years of my life researching a book on the American environmental movement, which is now available in the remainder bins of finer used books stores here and there, and I can tell you that the question of environmental racism -- in this case, of white-owned companies dumping toxic waste in black communities -- is well settled. In fact, I was surprised to learn that chemical pollution wasn't entirely a class issue -- poor white communities got less poison than middle-class black communities. That's 20-year-old news.

I know these guys need ways to attack Obama, but come on, Kimberly: You know better.

At least, I guess, Newsom can always distance himself; isn't that what ex-wives are for?

By Rebecca Bowe

Which would you rather have: $11.6 million in cash, or a pile of Monopoly money?

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. stands to lose 40,000 meters to a public power district, which says it can deliver electricity service that’s cheaper, more reliable, and more accountable to ratepayers than what the private utility offers.

In a unanimous 5-0 vote yesterday, the South San Joaquin Irrigation District Board -- a public utility agency -- voted unanimously to approve an application to the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to provide electricity service to some 40,000 customers who are now served by PG&E. The service territory spans the South San Joaquin County communities of Manteca, Escalon, and Ripon.

The move came after years of careful planning and extensive studies, SSJID General Manager Jeff Shields told us. An economic study concluded that switching from PG&E service to public power would save ratepayers $11.6 million annually -- cash that would stay in the community rather than lining the pockets of a private, monopolistic utility.

Shields said between 70 and 90 people turned out for a public hearing held yesterday before the Board voted to approve the application. “Everybody that spoke against it was paid by PG&E,” he noted. “Everyone else was in favor.”

Text and video by Sarah Phelan

If you have been missing your commute across the Bay Bridge, or are wondering what it looks like now that the tie-in is tied in, check out this video, which I shot this morning.

(I pressed the “record” button just before crossing the San Francisco County line on the bridge's eastern span and didn't have a chance to press "stop" until I was on the western span of the bridge, so feel free to fast-forward your way through. Or you could replay this video four or five times to catch up on all those missed commutes.)

I was one of the lucky commuters to hear that the Bay Bridge had reopened, while I still had time to change my travel plans and drive in, instead of BARTing or taking the ferry.

Now, some car-haters may fault my joy at driving again, but for me the bridge reopening represents a good and clear any-time-of-the day-and night connection to the city--one that my family desperately needs right now (we’d spent the long weekend finding creative ways to get from the East Bay to San Francisco where an ambulance took my sister-in-law, who is battling cancer, late Thursday night, after the bridge closed).

It was interesting to sometimes drive the San Mateo Bridge (the traffic wasn’t too bad on Saturday) and to take the Oakland-Alameda ferry on other days (pretty crowded Sunday), and obviously it was possible to get in and out. But today I am relieved to know that there is no longer a major obstacle between me and UCSF’s intensive care unit, where my sister-in-law is fighting for her life.

So, thanks to all the folks who busted their asses and made it possible for all us commuters, not to mention Bay Area ambulances, fire trucks, police cars and other emergency vehicles, to drive the Bridge again.

Today, the drive was super smooth, but judging from the speed limit signs on the new section, the commute will probably be a little slower as folks slow for the curve--and rubber neck to take a look at what's changed.

Oh, and try not to think about cracks, tie-ins and earthquakes, while you are actually driving across. Otherwise, you really will be taking public transportation for ever!

p.s. in light of some amusingly catty feedback about the soundtrack, I guess it's worth mentioning that my "car radio" consists of a boom box plugged into my cigarette lighter and balanced on my passenger seat. And that it would be virtually impossible and downright dangerouns to change stations while rounding a curve, changing gear (I drive a stick shift) AND filming the bridge. So yeah, ALICE was on. And maybe you don't like that. In which case, turn down the volume on your computer. Better yet, watch the video again, only this time listening to your own music of choice.

By Just A Guy

I feel like ranting, so I’m going to.

There’s a TV show called Southland on NBC, a show about cops in LA that’s actually quite entertaining. At any rate, in the show, one of the cops is addicted to pain pills, to the point where he buys them illegally. I guess what I have an issue with is the way the show portrays this cop with an addiction, causing one to feel sympathy for him. But when you see the other addicts in the show, the ones who are criminals, they are portrayed much more, shall we say, negatively.

It’s almost as if a cop’s moral compass is more finely tuned because he’s a cop addict and not your general street addict.

Most shows portray addicts as thieves or crooks, and while I appreciate Southland’s attempt to honestly look at addiction in uniform, I think it’s disturbing that the media generally promotes addiction as something that only thugs and gangsters experience.

***

I have certainly blogged about the lack of programs at CDCR, but feel compelled to mention this: A couple of day ago I noticed a signup sheet taped to the officers’ podium in my building. It read: “sign up sheet” on the top sand underneath, “emotional maturity class”

There are 200 people in my building. One has signed up. Question: How many others in prison are emotionally mature enough to realize we may benefit from such a class? And how many really know what emotional maturity means?

By Tim Redmond

I talked in my editors notes column this week about the remarkable document created in 1975 by the San Francisco Community Congress. It marked the beginning of community-based local organizing in modern San Francisco, and I promised to post it on the web.

So here it is. (PDF) Enjoy.

By Tim Redmond

It's not hard to find suggestions for how President Obama should handle his speech tonight. Maybe the speech isn't all that important anyway -- it's what the president does afterward.

But our line on it is simple: The Democrats have compromised enough. The Republicans have no credibility here and there isn't going to be a bipartisan solution. So Obama needs to fight to win.

Text and photos by Sarah Phelan

On Wednesday night, as folks were getting ready to watch President Barack Obama’s speech about health care, the State Assembly voted 69-1 in support of an amended version of Sen. Mark Leno’s SB 792.

Leno's bill, which is now back in the Senate, gives the State the authority to sell 23 acres of Candlestick Point State Recreation Area for $50 million.

Assemblymember Tom Ammiano was the lone dissenter on Leno's bill with seven others abstaining or not voting.

Those voting "aye" included Assemblymembers Fiona Ma and Nancy Skinner. Florida-based developer Lennar, which has entered into a public-private partnership with the City of San Francisco to redevelop 770-acres at Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point, is arguing that it needs these additional 23 acres of prime waterfront property to build luxury condos, if the rest of its massive redevelopment plan is to pencil out.

Initially, SB 792 would have allowed the State to sell 43 acres of Candlestick Point State Recreation Area, the Bayview’s only major park, for condos. As such, it faced stiff opposition from the Sierra Club, Arc Ecology and Friends of Candlestick Point Park.

In its amended form, SB 792 authorizes the exchange of 23 acres, thus preserving 20 acres of existing parkland—a compromise, Leno says, that secured the neutrality of these three key environmental groups.

“I am especially pleased that after months of negotiations, amendments to SB 792 resulted in the neutrality of the Sierra Club, Arc Ecology and Friends of Candlestick Point,” Leno said.

So, what does SB 792’s passage mean for the park's ecological integrity? And won't the impact of removing 23 acres from the Bayview's only major park be magnified, once condos and high rises have been built?

By Rebecca Bowe

Some commentators were greatly reassured by President Barack Obama’s speech on health care reform yesterday, while others thought he spent too much energy answering to Republican critics. (In case you missed it, you can find the full text and video here.) As the debate rages on in D.C., health-care reform advocates across the country are weighing in to push for meaningful reform.

A statement from the National Coalition on Health Care highlights a U.S. Census Bureau report that was released earlier today. It offers a glimpse of how the severe recession has eroded health-care coverage, and made it more difficult for people to afford health insurance.

A few of the key findings:

· The total number of people without health insurance coverage jumped from 45.7 million in 2007 to 46.3 million in 2008.

· There were 39.8 million people in poverty in 2008, up from 37.3 million in 2007. The 2008 poverty rate was the highest since 1997.

· The real median household income in the United States fell 3.6 percent between 2007 and 2008, from $52,163 to $50,303.

The report doesn’t even begin to address the impacts of job losses and economic instability that have continued through 2009.

“We need, without delay, to pass comprehensive health care reform legislation this year,” NCHC stated, “before our uninsured crisis deepens further.”

By Just A Guy

Editors note: Just A Guy is an inmate in a California state prison. His reports run twice a week.

Tuesday night’s news reported on California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spending and, believe it or not, the anchor was actually outraged.

The report said that over the past three years, CDCR has spent 32 percent more -- but the inmate population has decreased by one percent. over that same period of time.

CDCR claims that the increase in spending is due to an increase in the cost of health care for inmates as well as lawsuits and overtime.

Well, in the two years and change that I have been in the custody of CDCR, I have not seen the quality of health care improve one iota. For our perspective, it has not improved as it should with this purported increase in spending. At least not at the institution I’m in.

The federal courts seem to agree as well, since they have ordered the release of more than 43,000 inmates since CDCR’s overcrowded conditions are resulting in constitutionally inadequate health care.

For you whiners and corrections officers who say we get better health care than most people on the streets, and that we should consider ourselves lucky, blah blah blah: Just because are getting some “health care” does not mean we are getting better health care than the general public.

The state is obligated to give us health care. Just because we’re in prison doesn’t mean we should be denied health care. To do so would create misery for CDCR and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association anyway -- it’s really in their best interest to keep us recidivists healthy to guarantee their jobs for the long haul.

The aging prison population still has to be watched, right?

For every one of us that does get an expensive procedure done, there are hundreds that don’t get shit done. Half the medical staff and doctors barely speak English well enough to be understood, and they use their broken language to try and convince you there’s nothing wrong with you. It’s not like CDCR hires the best and the brightest -- working in prison for most health care providers is the bottom of the rung.

The overtime: The news said that there were seven CDCR officers -- sergeants and lieutenants -- who earned more than the director of CDCR, Matt Cate, who makes a salary of $225,000 a year. They also said that 8,400 staff made $20,000 or more in overtime last year. At $20,000, that’s $168 million. But how many made $30,000, or 40,000? How many earned between $10,000 and $20,000 in overtime? What’s the real overtime figure, $250 million? How many programs could be created to help out prisoners -- or crime victims -- for $250 million? How many college kids could afford to go to school for a year?

Lawsuits? What are they talking about? Are they talking about money paid out to plaintiffs and in settlements? If so, is that not indicative of a pretty big problem -- so big that CDCR is losing lawsuits because of its ineptitude?

Just something to think about.

By Tim Redmond

The group Consumer Watchdog is going after Mercury Insurance. Absolut Vodka is going after guys, I guess, with what appears to be a giant vag in the sky.

And guess which image the billboard company removed?

Steve Lopez at the LA Times says "its funny what passes for offensive these days.

Now, I don't find pictures of vaginas offensive (it's supposed to be a mango, but WTF?). But I agree with Lopez that removing a billboard critical of an insurance company is, at the very least, a free speech issue.

By Steven T. Jones

Do we really know the full truth about what happened on 9/11, the devastating attacks that occurred eight years ago today? Based on my research and assessment of the inquiries that followed that horrific event, I don’t think anyone can claim to know the full truth. But that hasn’t stopped conservatives and know-it-all pundits from demonizing and belittling skeptics of the official 9/11 theory in an aggressive fashion in recent weeks.

The most disturbing example was the truly scary right-wing propagandist Glenn Beck’s successful crusade against Van Jones, forcing his resignation from the Obama Administration mostly for having signed a letter calling for an investigation of whether the Bush Administration ignored warnings about the attacks and then used them to further their foreign policy goals.

Why is that suggestion so outrageous? As even the ludicrously narrow 9/11 Commission investigation (which Harper’s Magazine and other respectable voices dismissed as a whitewash) showed, top Bush officials were warned of impending al Qaeda attacks in the month before they occurred, they did nothing, and then used the attacks to launch their so-called “War on Terror,” even discussing invading Iraq (which wasn’t involved in 9/11) as the World Trade Center still smoldered.

By Rebecca Bowe

Mark Twain said that whiskey is for drinking, and water is for fightin'. Which one do you think Sacramento lawmakers will be thirsty for by the time they adjourn?

The California Legislature is scheduled to adjourn at midnight tonight, but many items on its to-do list have yet to be checked off. One of the biggies is a new plan for the state’s Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta water system, a contentious mess that seems to defy political solution. The plan would address looming issues like unstable Delta levees, and unsustainable pumping of water exports are crippling fisheries.

California’s water conference committee signed off on a five-bill package to address Delta water issues, moving it out of committee in time for a floor vote, but without any Republican support. Nor do the bills include a plan for financing water projects, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he would veto anything that doesn’t include new bonds for water-storage initiatives. Lawmakers on the right are withholding support and calling the package a proposal that “ignores the need for a reliable water supply and only caters to the interests of extreme environmentalists."

Then again, some environmental organizations are highly skeptical of the bills, too, so it’s hard imagine how a plan can be hashed out -- by the end of the day -- that would satisfy both sides.

By Tim Redmond

The governor agreed to cut $1.2 billion out of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilition budget this summer, but ducked the tough question of how to do it, leaving that up to the Legislature -- which also can't quite reach an answer. A moderate, watered-down bill that Speaker Karen Bass pulled together scraped through the Assembly, but is stuck, like so many other bills, in battles over the final language. As Brian at Calitics puts it:

The Assembly plan doesn't have enough cost savings (or enough spine) and the Senate seems reluctant to pull the trigger on a half measure

Some weak Democrats, including Fiona Ma, refused to vote for the moderate bill, and now the Senate leaders are saying they want a stronger bill, which gives some of them a reason to vote against it. It takes political courage (and common sense) to recognize that most inmates are getting out anyway, and that early, supervised releases of nonviolent prisoners isn't going to harm the public in any way.

So if nothing happens here, we'll be stuck this fall with a big problem: A $1.2 billion hole in the state budget, and no plans to fix it.

By Tim Redmond

The San Francisco district attorney is running for attorney general. Statewide candidates, especially Democrats, tend to get hammered as "soft on crime" if they so much as utter of word against locking up more prisoners and killing more murderers.

So on the surface, it doesn't make much political sense for Kamala Harris to announce that she won't seek the death penalty in a high-profile (and particularly nasty) murder.

She still insists that, while she personally opposes the death penalty, she looks at every case individually. But right now, she's doing the right thing, and refusing to go against what she knows is the right position on the issue. And she's going to take some political heat for it.

In the end, though, it's not going to cost her the job. If anything, in a race and a season when everyone is going to be pandering and trying to make cheap political points, she's going to look good.

At least I hope so.

By Tim Redmond

Well, the state Senate just approved the Assembly's version of a prison reform bill, which is too weak but at least it's something. It will go back to the Assembly tonight.

By the way, if you want to watch all the end-of-session madness -- the bills flying through, the impassioned speeches and the outright nuttery (I was just enjoying the debate in the Assembly over limits on mail-order ammunition -- good God, these Republicans are strange), you can get streaming video here.

The state Legislature wrapped up its session around 7 a.m. Saturday, after officially stopping the clock on the midnight deadline and pretending it wasn’t the next day yet until 120 elected officials endured a sleepless night and a lot of critical work didn’t get done. The really bad all-nighters in college were the ones when you felt like hell the next day and didn’t finish the term paper anyway.

There’s a pretty good roundup here and hereon a couple of the bills.

It’s remarkable: Governor Schwarzenegger is going to veto the very bill he initially proposed. He’s going to sign a prison reform bill that doesn’t even come close to doing what he agrees has to be done to cut prison costs. And unless he calls a special session of the Legislature to deal with water issues, there will be nothing to stave off the near-collapse of the Bay/Delta estuary.

Meanwhile, of course, the Republicans refused to back down and approve a tiny $16 million allocation to save domestic violence sheters (which literally save lives).

At least the Senate refused to exempt a bizarre sports stadium plan in Southern California from CEQA; it looked for a while there as if the legislators were going to cut a huge hole in the state’s landmark environmental law just to please a billionaire.

Hell of a session. Can't wait for the fall.

By Tim Redmond

I'm not about to start a campaign here; I know the place is falling apart and a hazard to everyone and ought to be turned into affordable housing, so there's no rational reason to protest the Redevelopment Agency's plan to bulldoze the old Hugo Hotel.

But I have to say: I'm going to miss the place.

It just sat there for so long, a weird piece of street art, an abandoned building with furniture flowing out of the windows and hanging on the walls defying gravity and progress. Every time I'd pass by, I'd say: God, I love this fucking city.

It was just art for art's sake, no money in it, no sign describing the vision of the artist, no discussion of what it means or meant ... just old stuff miraculously bolted to the old crumbling walls of an an old crumbling building. I always wondered what would fall down first and what the green couch would look like after it hit the sidewalk.

It was never meant to be permanent. And now it will be gone. That's appropriate, in a sad kind of way.

But every time something truly strange goes away, San Francisco loses a bit of itself. I hope we don't forget this one; maybe Redevelopment can find the cash to hire a photographer to document the place, and put great big color pictures of it up in the lobby of the new, clean, sterile project that takes its place, just to remind us that things were different here, once.

By Rebecca Bowe

The California Independent System Operator (ISO), a quasi-governmental body that oversees the state’s electric grid, held a hearing about San Francisco’s Mirant Potrero Power Plant on Friday to decide whether the polluting facility should be required to stay in operation through next year.

The hearing came about a month after City Attorney Dennis Herrera struck a deal with Mirant to shutter the entire plant by the end of 2010. That agreement will only stick if the ISO is willing to release the plant from a Reliability Must Run (RMR) contract, which has kept it in operation for decades despite opposition from San Francisco elected officials.

In short, the ISO indicated that it would be willing to release Unit 3 -- which represents the lion’s share of the power plant’s emissions -- from the RMR contract by spring of 2010, but it still hasn’t budged on the smaller, diesel-fired units known as 4, 5, and 6.

We received this detailed update from Joshua Arce, executive director of the Brightline Defense Project, who attended the hearing.

I would summarize by saying that environmental and community groups saw movement from ISO, but we think they can do better.

By Steven T. Jones

On the day that former President Bill Clinton endorsed Gavin Newsom’s campaign for governor, it’s hard to believe the local blog post that Newsom is about to call it quits, and sources I consulted dispute key tenets of the anonymously sourced article. Yet there’s still plenty of reason to believe that Newsom’s quest is doomed.

While Newsom’s sleazy affair with Ruby Rippey-Tourk was already bound to hurt his candidacy, it is how he handled it afterward that really makes Newsom look untrustworthy and immoral. I attended the 2007 press conference where Newsom blithely admitted “everything you may have heard or read is true” regarding the affair, only to recently tell the New York Times Magazine and Fast Company just the opposite, that there was “a story that has yet to come out” in which Newsom looks good.

This is seriously delusional stuff, the product of a deeply megalomaniacal mind, as if he actually sees himself as a victim for banging his top aide’s wife. It’s reminiscent of his wife Jennifer Siebel’s disturbing quote in the Chronicle that was followed by her crazy extended comment to SFist blaming Ruby for the affair and excusing Newsom’s behavior on the grounds that she supposedly showed up drunk at his door, an odd “date rape as defense” strategy.

I and other journalists have long hounded Newsom to address issues raised by the affair, and he’s always refused to discuss it. Yet now, as he worries about the impact of this affair on his ambitions, suddenly there’s an “untold story.” Newsom is already held in very low esteem even by his former supporters, but if he and his top political henchman, Garry South, continue to try to rewrite this sordid history by dragging the Tourks through the mud again, our mayor might find himself a top candidate for San Francisco’s All-Time Hall of Shame.

Gavin, if you still have a soul, now’s probably a good time to search it and decide if you really want to trade it in for your longshot pursuit of power.

By Steven T. Jones

We’re now getting word that the Commonwealth Club’s Inforum speakers series has just landed a big fish for this week: filmmaker Michael Moore, whose new “Capitalism: A Love Story” promises to make a big splash when it hits theaters on Oct. 2 (check out the glowing review of the film by Beyond Chron’s Randy Shaw, who saw an advanced showing yesterday at the AFL-CIO national convention).

Inforum officials tell us Moore will speak here in San Francisco on Thursday evening, Sept. 17, although details and ticket information haven’t yet been posted on the club’s website, although that's expected soon. More to come.

By Rebecca Bowe

Video by Sarah Phelan

SEIU Local 1021 paid a visit to Mayor Gavin Newsom at his City Hall office yesterday, but his doors remained closed and locked. It won’t be the last time Newsom will hear from them, however. The union is launching an aggressive campaign to “dog the mayor,” organizer Robert Halaand told the Guardian, to pressure him to uphold the city’s commitment to comparable worth.

In 1986, San Franciscans approved Proposition H to enshrine the principal of comparable worth -- ensuring pay equity for jobs that are held predominantly by women and people of color in an effort to combat institutional sexism and racial discrimination. Since certified nursing assistants (CNAs) and unit clerks employed in San Francisco’s public hospitals fit that description, their pay was gradually increased in the years following the passage of Prop. H.

However, budget cuts made in recent months resulted in those hospital employees getting cut and simultaneously reclassified into lower-paying positions. From SEIU’s perspective, the downgrades signify a form of discrimination and the reversal of a hard-won gain for women and people of color in San Francisco.

By Just A Guy

Editors note: Just A Guy is an inmate in the California state prison system. His dispatches run twice a week.

I am constantly amazed at the cowardice of the politicians who are running this state. The Legislature passed the prison bill, reducing the population by 16,000 inmates -- but this is a watered-down bill that still leaves $200 million more for California to wrest from other areas, like education and health care.

No one wants to be seen as soft on crime -- but a lot of the crimes people are in prison for are moral crimes. Any crime in which there is not an actual victim -- that is, a person or entity -- should not be a crime, period.

Eighteen percent of the inmates in California are in for drug-related crimes -- possession or sales. That’s roughly 30,000 people. Why not let all of them out, now?

Politicians seem only able to describe the decisions they make when they are accused of something -- rarely do we see a thoughtful conversation held about a topic that necessitates a dialogue. Like the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, these legislators do what they want, when they want, to whom ever they want, but hide behind the veil of public safety when questioned about their actions -- which will, in the long term, harm public safety.

I don’t understand how the general public keeps allowing this ridiculous spending on prisons to go on unquestioned. Are the voters so caught up in their own little worlds to not realize the long-term impact of the terrible laws and terrible system? It must be -- because it keeps going on, unchecked.

The president’s health-care reform plan has the public screaming and yelling and talking about long-term costs etc. But they can’t seem the forest for the trees when it comes to prison spending. It goes to show how shortsighted people can be when it comes to their own wallets. It’s akin to never getting your home checked for termites, then being surprised when the house comes crashing down around you, but the chimney still stands.

It’s pretty obvious that the plan in Sacramento is really to just allow the feds to come in and take over the problem. California has until Friday to show the court its plan to replace the prison pop by 43,000 over the next two years. Right: They can’t even figure out how to reduce it by 27,000 over one year. You think they’ll come up with a workable plan by Friday?

The Supreme Court already denied CA’s appeal to extend the deadline.

Mass releases -- coming soon, to a theater near you.

Tuesday marked a return to business, as the Board of Supervisors reconvened after a month-long recess.
It also seemed to mark a return to business as usual on the part of those elected officials who occupy City Hall, including Mayor Gavin Newsom, and, of course, the folks who love to hate them.

Outside, former D8 supervisorial candidate, Libertarian Party member and sex worker Starchild, tanned and stripped down to the waist, was demanding an audit of the federal reserve as outlined in H.R. 1207, and as part of the “Campaign for Liberty.”

By Steven T. Jones

Time.com’s “5 Things Cities Can Learn from Burning Man”

Gabriel Metcalf was just giddy when he heard about Burning Man’s 2010 art theme: “Metropolis: The Life of Cities.” It beautifully brought together two of his two passions. In addition to being a four-time attendee of the event, he’s the executive director of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association.

“I can’t believe the Burning Man theme. It’s just so awesome,” he said, palpably giddy. “Black Rock City is one of the great cities of the world.”

That’s high praise from someone whose days are devoted to studying urban life and its myriad challenges, and a testament to the fact that Black Rock City has successfully made the transition from frontier to city. Metcalf was equally excited about the other Burning Man news that I reported in today’s Guardian: how Black Rock LLC wants to create a year-round retreat and think tank on the playa and how they want a high-profile headquarters in the vicinity of SPUR’s new Urban Center, which opened earlier this year.

“One thing I love about Burning Man taking on the question of urbanism is it’s going to not just be about physical placement, how you lay out the blocks and streets, but about community in a larger sense,” Metcalf said. “The exploration of different forms of community is what I think is so interesting and transformative for the people who go there.”

By Tim Redmond

The Small Business Commission isn’t one of the highest-profile public bodies in San Francisco, but to the tens of thousands of small entrepreneurs in the city, it’s important. So the recent appointment of Luke O’Brien to a vacancy on the panel left a lot of small business activists scratching their heads.

“Nobody knew this individual,” Scott Hauge, one of the city’s best-connected and active small business leaders, told me. “As far as we know, he’s never been active in small business issues.”

When the seat opened up, the commission’s director, Regina Dick-Endrizzi, let the small business community know there was on opening, and advised interested people to send in recommendations, and Hauge and others had plenty to offer. But in the end, the way the new commissioner was chosen says a lot about how Newsom makes decisions -- and how little he cares about real community input.

O’Brien, according to a resume the mayor’s office sent over, has a background in sales, engineering and technical support and has worked for several technology companies, including Lucent, where he was a corporate sales engineering manager, and two start-ups, one in Mountain View and one in Reno. In 2003, he joined Pattani Construction, a San Francisco outfit run by Mel Murphy, a developer and Residential Builders Association guy who holds the RBA seat on the Department of Building Inspection Commission. When Murphy set up a real-estate investment company the next year, O’Brien joined him as vice president and partner.

According to the mayor’s press secretary, Nathan Ballard,

Commissioner O'Brien will work to ensure that small local construction companies get their fair share of construction dollars. He will work with Small Business Commission Director Regina Dick-Endrizzi and Supervisor David Chiu on their ongoing efforts to reduce redundant and unnecessary businesses fees, and will bring needed expertise into those business fees flowing out of the DBI and Planning Department that are most onerous for small businesses.

In other words, he’s an RBA guy who wants to make life easier for developers. He's given money to Newsom allies, including Doug Chan for Supervisor and Joe Alioto for supervisor. (I haven't been able to reach O'Brien, but I left him a message and I'll let you know if I hear back.)

Since he has no visible background in the small business community, none of the activists had ever heard of him, and none of the names that Hauge and his allies submitted had made the cut, I asked Ballard who the mayor had met with, reached out to or discussed this appointment with. His response:

“O’Brien was recommended to us by his business partner, Mel Murphy.”

By Tim Redmond

I wasn’t going to say anything about the SF Weekly’s big story on the Weather Underground. I mean, Peter Jamison clearly did a lot of work, it was reported in some detail, and frankly, I’ve over talking about what happened back in 1970.

But it keeps gnawing at me, mostly because I don’t really like this whole idea of dredging up radicals from the past and trying to find ways to put them in jail today. I know, I know, a cop got killed and there’s no statute of limitations for murder, and nobody should ever get away with killing anyone else.

But that was a time when all sorts of people on all sides were doing really fucked-up stuff, from the Vietnam War to COINTELPRO; Geronimo Pratt spent most of his adult life in prison after being framed for a crime he didn’t commit. Fred Hampton was murdered. The list goes on -- and none of the perpetrators of the state-backed or state-sanctioned violence have ever paid for their crimes.

You can read a remarkable essay by former Guardian arts editor J.H. Thompkins about it here. His basic take:

The '60s were full of challenge, and although I'm not a revolutionary now, in my heart, I'm still a revolutionary then. You believed you could change the world and yourself in the process, and that was liberating. The politics were confusing, we made mistakes, and at the end of the day, the fact is that we were right and the other side – racists, politicians, corporate vultures, and the rest – were wrong.

Sometimes I think we should just have a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, put it behind us and move on.

Anyway, I asked an old friend of mine who was around in those days what he thought about the Weekly story. He didn’t want his name used, because even now this shit scares people, and the FBI seems happy to be looking for every Sixties radical it can find. But he had some interesting comments:

I'd heard this story was coming out;. it doesn't seem credible to me. I wasn't too far away from that scene during those months they refer to -- December '69-March 1970 -- and I don't think BLA and Weather were much connected. Weather types had showed up in disarray after the fucked up "days of rage" thing. And I just don't think they had the ties -- in fact, I'm almost certain they didn't. even the early weather people weren't so stupid as to meet a group (BLA) and then pull some horrific job with them. I'd be more inclined to think it was the splinter Panther, BLA-types, even though that trend wasn't very big in the bay area.

Cops and FBI statements all sound like typical conspiracy things, general and ignorant of any real nuance. And the writer - what was the point of this? - doesn't dig much up but aging police sources, but does a good job with the incriminating innuendo.

The most credible voice for the cops is Gitlin; because his statement is very true. The group was nearly defunct after days of rage, and the true believers were prone to crazed hyperbole like Bernadine Dohrn’s Manson riff at Flint. It was like that Sociology 101 book "when prophecy fails," so they were over the top between the fall and when the townhouse exploded. then it changed dramatically.

But I still don't think that it makes any sense. The Weather people were so naive and so new to it at the end of '69; I just don't think they could have - or would have - pulled it off. Plus, and I was closer to the people if not the group as '70 wore on, I never heard one whiff of gossip about it, and those people loved to tell their stories. What's more disturbing is the way all this stuff sets precedents, softening up people so that the country is used to finding demon radicals in America again.

I don’t know if Weather Underground was involved in this bombing. I do know that it’s almost impossible at this point to prove it, one way or another. There were too many nutcases doing too much crazy stuff, and all this can possibly lead to is another show trial that seeks to put the Sixties on defense again.

I’m kind of over that, too.

Text by Sarah Phelan

If de la Plaza really killed himself, how come no one can find the weapon?

I'm still waiting for a copy of this latest report and a call back from SFPD, but the Chronicle is reporting that the LAPD's review of the 2007 stabbing death of Hugues de la Plaza is leaning towards ruling the case a suicide.

And that's a verdict that has made de la Plaza's ex-girlfriend, Melissa Nix, extremely angry.

"It's very disappointing," an emotional Nix told me today. 'It's a cynical decision that's meant to silenced critics. How can they explain that a man kills himself when there is no weapon? They should be ashamed of themselves."

Nix went onto slam the SFPD's new chief George Gascón .
"This shows that Gascón is not necessarily in favor of cfhange, but of politics as usual," Nix said. "I think San Francisco should be outraged. And scared. San Francisco can't be the kind of city where you murder someone and get away with it."

After a March press conference in which the de la Plaza family announced that French investigators had ruled the stabbing a homicide, and a report from the Office of Citizen Complaints that found that de la Plaza was a low SFPD priority, the SFPD agreed to review the case. And when Gascón took over as SFPD Chief this summer, he called investigators in the LAPD, where he used to work, and asked them to take another look at the case.

But according to the Chronicle, Dr. Venus Azar, the SFPD Medical Examiner in charge of the case, intends to stick by her original finding, namely that the cause of de la Plaza's death is "undetermined."

Either way, this case is doubtless going to get people wondering just how many deaths that the SFPD has ruled as suicides or undetermined were actually homicides. And how many murderers wander our streets unchecked.

It's typical for women to swear and variously carry on while giving birth. So, one can't help wondering what Jennifer said when she saw Gavin tweeting, while she was busy pushing out daughter Montana.

By Steven T. Jones

Are we actually, finally, about to have a long overdue national conversation about capitalism? I really hope so, and perhaps the catalyst for that conversation can be Michael Moore’s new film, “Capitalism: A Love Story,” which I saw yesterday and which debuts in theaters on Oct. 2.

Moore doesn’t pull any punches in assailing an economic system that has created huge and growing disparities in wealth, corrupted both the public and private sectors, destroyed people’s lives and the country’s manufacturing base, and is both wasteful and unsustainable -- a system that even the mainstream clergy he interviews labels as “evil.”

He makes excellent use of last year’s financial meltdown and the electoral gun that Wall Street power brokers (working inside and outside the federal government, Democrats and Republicans alike) held to the heads of Congress members in order to get their $700 billion bailout, which Moore calls a theft of the US treasury.

But it’s his use of archival footage that really brings home just how much capitalist propaganda has conditioned the American people into accepting as natural and inevitable an economic system that is so hostile to their interests. Particularly powerful was a speech that FDR made a year before his death calling for a “Second Bill of Rights” that would guarantee the right to work for livable wages, have access to affordable health care and quality education, housing that is adequate and reasonably priced, a pension and vacation time, and the resources to enjoy recreation and pursue our happiness.

These are reasonable expectations that the richest 1 percent of the country – which Moore shows as actively conspiring against basic equity, fair competition, and the common good, citing an incriminating Citibank memo among other evidence – has removed from the realm of the possible. And it’s time that the people rose up against our economic masters and demanded a new economic system that is sustainable, equitable, and just, something he shows as already starting to happen here and there.

“I refuse to live in a country like this and I’m not leaving,” Moore said toward the end of the film, soon adding, “Capitalism is an evil and you can’t regulate evil -- you have to eliminate it.”

By Just A Guy

Editors note: Just A Guy is an inmate in a California state prison. His reports run twice a week.

I wasn’t going to write anything for today, but I realized after a conversation with someone earlier in the day, and one this afternoon with Tim, that I had an apology to make.

You see, I’ve been guilty over the last month or so of the very thing I am constantly denouncing, which is wholesale condemnation of various groups and entities.

That’s not fair, and I don’t want it done to me, and I really am trying to treat people how I would like to be treated.

So, I say: Please accept my apology if you are a politician, or a California Correctional Peace Officers Association member, or a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation employee, or a media person or a person in general who is fighting for change within the prison system, fighting for sentencing reform, trying to move toward sane policies around prisons, and doesn’t buy into the constant rhetoric about those of us in prison.

I apologize for lumping you together with those you don’t deserve to be compared with. And I say, thank you for your efforts at rational laws and fair inmate practices.

But, for those of you that are the cowards and liars serving from the trough of fear, that acrid ambrosia you’re serving the general public in the name of public safety, I still say, Screw You.

Well, it’s 3:30 and California still hasn’t, to my knowledge, given the federal courts a plan to reduce the prison population by 43,000 over the next two years. Imagine that. They don’t have a real plan -- well, actually, the real plan all along has been to have the feds come in and take over, so the state can still look tough on crime.

A meager fight is the same as a non fight, which is basically giving up and saying, we don’t know what to do.

There’s nothing wrong with admitting when you are wrong and accepting defeat. But for many, I think it’s more cowardice at the public expense -- the public that would rather the problem just go away because we have enough problems already.

“Oh well, oh hell,” as my dad would say.

I hope the feds get it right, and the powers that be use their “new slate” to make changes that may work.

Do unto others as you would have then do unto you.

By Steven T. Jones and Molly Freedenberg

San Francisco -- and cities around the world -- celebrated Park(ing) Day today in glorious fashion, transforming hundreds of automobile parking spaces (about 50 in SF alone) into mini-parks and works of art.

Among the highlights: the folks at Rebar, which founded the event here in 2005, made the rounds in their pedal-powered Parkcycle; Temple nightclub and Ritual Roasters each created lush lawns for lounging; SPUR worked with the Great Streets Project to extend the sidewalks with platforms and create a street party complete with DJ and belly dancers; Four Barrels Coffee turned car parking spots into bicycle parking spots; and Interstice Architects had a mobile forest that moved to various spots, including 826 Valencia in the afternoon. Downtown's parks were said to be liveliest during lunch hour, whereas Mission area installations drew the most activity in the afternoon.

Some images of the event by Steven T. Jones:

By Steven T. Jones

The New York Post -- or the Yes Men's version of it -- finally levels with the people about capitalism and climate change.

A few days after I wrote here about my hopes that the upcoming film "Capitalism: A Love Story" would prompt a national discussion about our doomed economic system, The Yes Men have provided another wake-up call, creating a fake New York Post website and newspapers warning of the climate change disaster we're headed for if we don't quickly change our wasteful, overly consumptive ways.

That stunt -- a hallmark of this creative duo -- precedes the Oct. 7 release of their new film, "Yes Men Save the World." Combined with Michael Moore's Oct. 2 release of "Capitalism," we have an excellent opportunity for an important discussion, if only mainstream media obstacles like Post owner Rupert Murdoch would recognize economic and environmental realities. But we at the Guardian plan to facilitate the discussion over the coming weeks so stay tuned.

By Just A Guy

Editors note: Just A Guy is an inmate in a California state prison. His dispatches appear twice a week.

I guess this is sort of a continuance from my last blog, which was, What Plan?My sentiment hasn’t changed -- what the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has offered the three-judge panel is a “plan” that will surely get rejected.

The political rhetoric indicates that the state will fight -- but it really is weak rhetoric, spoken just between the ears of constituents by politicians who want to appear tough on crime.

For those who that don’t deal directly with lawyers and politicians on a daily basis, the “we-will-fight-the-feds” speech really is weak. They have to say that -- to appear tough on crime and strong for public safety (in their minds anyway). But I believe a good percentage of them are silently grateful for the escape granted to them by the feds. Ultimately, the court will reject their weak plan and take over long enough to release dozens of thousands of us .

If CDCR and the politicians who say they’re against releases felt as strong as they would have you think, a much more robust, pragmatic, well-thought-out process to deal with overcrowding would have been presented.

The Republicans claim to be against big government. If they really thought that way about the release scenario, they would have pushed for a plan that would have been acceptable to the courts and kept the big federal government out of the California prison system.

The Democrats who speak against releases and federal interference are just hypocrites scampering for a way to ride out the potential political fallout they perceive if they don’t “speak out” against releases.

Meanwhile, the ones who are speaking up for sanity are not getting the shaft that the others so feared.

The long-term results of the current budget cuts for health care, welfare and education are not seen as threats to public safety. But its so right in front of everyone to see and it’s not too complicated to explain nor to understand:

-- Cuts to welfare mean more people have to find a way to feed themselves and their families. Consequently, they may steal or deal drugs.

-- Cuts to health care mean less money to pay for you and your family’s health -- consequently people will steal or deal drugs to pay for health care.

-- Cuts to education mean a less-educated workforce that can’t get jobs because the economy sucks so they get on welfare .... oops, there is no welfare. Consequently, they steal or deal drugs to pay for food or healthcare or both.

Of course, there are those that wind up on drugs because it’s easier to worry about the next high than your next meal.

40,000 now -- or what, 400,000 in five years?

By Tim Redmond

Municipal Transportation Agency officials have drafted a plan to overhaul the San Francisco taxi industry -- and just about everyone hates it.

The proposal, outlined in a Sept. 8 memo from Christiane Hayashi, director of taxis and accessible services, would ultimately shift control of cab permits away from working drivers and give them to cab companies.

The process would be slow -- the drivers who currently hold medallions would be allowed to keep them until they retire or die, and the 1,700 people who have been on the medallion waiting list for more than 10 years would retain their rights.

But in the future, as the valuable medallions get returned to the city, they would be auctioned off to cab companies. The companies wouldn’t technically own the permits, but would bid for long-term leases.

The idea runs directly counter to the landmark 1978 legislation known as Proposition K, which for the first time gave drivers the right to control their own permits. Under Prop. K, written by then-Supervisor Quentin Kopp, medallions are issued for a token annual fee to active, working drivers. No corporations are allowed to hold medallions. The only way to get a medallion is to put your name on the waiting list; it often takes as long as 15 years.

Of course, drivers who get the medallions see an immediate and substantial increase in their incomes. The medallions are valid 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, so medallion holders can driver a few shifts a week and lease them out to other drivers for the rest of the time. The lease fees can add up to about $3,000 a month.

And that income continues as long as the medallion holder is alive -- and driving a cab. If he or she can’t drive a minimum number of hours, the medallion is returned to the city and goes to the next person on the waiting list.

By Sarah Morrison

The 2006 film The Bridge documented suicides from the iconic span.

It was almost a year ago that local officials decided that the Golden Gate Bridge needed a net constructed to prevent potential suicide jumpers, but with its projected price tag of $50 million, a lack of state funds threatens to delay the project indefinitely.

According to Marin County Coroner Ken Holmes, more than 1300 people have died jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge since its construction, an estimate that does not include all bridge suicides or incidences when bodies have not been found.

The Bridge Rail Foundation has been campaigning for years to raise the pedestrian safety rail on the Golden Gate Bridge and stop the suicides. While the board of directors for the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District agreed to implement the net system almost a year ago, but it’s fate now seems to come down to funding.

By Tim Redmond

Our mayor is having a little twitter fest, right now. Some of his insightful comments:

greatest challenge in CA is loss of human capital. Need to fully fund higher ed, reform K-12 system.

open source backbone of gov reform. use tools of tech to empower people to make policy. Check out datasf.org sf twitter 311

My question (still unanswered for the moment): How will you fund higher ed? What taxes will you raise, and on who?

By Steven T. Jones

While we’ve regularly criticized Pacific Gas & Electric for its corrupting political influence and for not doing enough on climate change, but we were happy to hear the company has resigned from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over the business association’s scurrilous campaign to dispute that climate change is real and caused by human activity.

"An intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges is quite another," PG&E CEO Peter Darbee wrote to the Chambers, according to the company.

The recent efforts by conservatives and corporations to turn back the clock on our understanding of climate change (which even the San Francisco Examiner is promoting) are disgraceful and should have no place in honest political debate. After a weird summer of right-wing Red-baiting, gun-toting, epithet-spewing antics, it’s an indication of how low the political discourse in this country has fallen when PG&E is calling out corporate America.

Text by Sarah Phelan

Lennar kicked off the first day of fall by reporting a $171.6 million third quarter fiscal loss for the period ending August 31. That’s more than double Lennar’s $89 million third quarter loss in 2008.

In a peppy press release posted at the corporation's investor relations website, Lennar President and CEO Stuart Miller attributed his company’s 3Q loss to lower sales volumes and falling house prices.

“While high unemployment and foreclosures will continue to present challenges, consumer sentiment has significantly improved as homebuyers have recognized that the residential housing market is stabilizing,” he said.

"Assuming the economy continues to stabilize, we believe our improved sales environment, increasing pre-impairment gross margins and ability to leverage S,G&A [ selling, general and administrative expenses] should enable us to return to profitability in fiscal 2010,” Miller concluded.

That’s a pretty big assumption that Wall Street apparently wasn’t swallowing: it sent Lennar's shares down 53 cents, or 3.2 percent, to $16.01 in yesterday's midday trading.

Further casting doubt over Lennar's hopes of a 2010 comeback is the fact that it's still unclear if lawmakers will decide to extend a federal tax credit of up to $8,000 for first-time homebuyers which expires Nov. 30.

By Sarah Morrison

UPTE's logo for tomorrow's UC walkout.

While UC Berkeley might have a long history of noisy protests and student activism, tomorrow’s UC-wide faculty and student walkout and worker strike seems unprecedented even within its own tumultuous history.

As a coalition of faculty, staff, students and workers across all of the UC campuses arrange to walk out of scheduled classes first thing tomorrow and protest against state cuts in funding, fee hikes, and changes to the traditional UC system of shared governance, the Berkeley community is expecting thousands to congregate in Sproul Plaza, the university’s traditional hub of student activity.

“The walkout tomorrow is just one milestone on what is likely to be a pretty long road to recovery,” said UC Berkeley professor of theatre, dance and performance studies, Catherine Cole. “It’s a moment to make visible the cuts and changes that are happening in our University – changes that are of profound importance and not yet necessarily made visible to all.”

By Tim Redmond

So now it’s official: Just when San Francisco political junkies needed something other than the generally dull November election to talk about, Bevan Dufty has done us all a favor and fired the opening gun in the 2011 mayor’s race.

It’s no surprise, really -- everyone knew that Dufty was running. Just as everyone knows that City Attorney Dennis Herrera and state Senator Leland Yee will be in the race, and that Assessor Phil Ting is looking at it, and that Sup. Ross Mirkarimi and Public Defender Jeff Adachi are mulling their prospects.

With public financing in place, and ranked-choice voting, the race will be fascinating. Dufty has never run citywide, but he’s a nice guy who can be funny and charming and he’s built a reputation as a nuts-and-bolts supervisor who takes government seriously. “Ross Magowan [of KTVU] asked me what my biggest single issue was, and I said Muni,” Dufty told me today. “He said that Muni was getting better, but hey -- crime is down 30 percent citywide and still up on Muni.”

Fixing Muni is a Dufty kind of thing -- not a grand civic vision, but a basic public service that people use that has problems. (A classic Dufty story: When the city got rid of the crossing guard at the school my kids go to a couple of years ago, which is in Dufty’s district, the principal called Dufty, and the guard was back the next day. He loves that sort of thing.)

“What I try to be is a collaborator,” he said. “I’ve never had the luxury of knowing I had six votes on the board, so I’ve had to reach out to people.”

He also promised that Mayor Dufty would always show up for question time at the board. He joked that “it’s easy for me to promise that because Chris Daly will be off the board by them” but in the next breath told me how much he likes and respects Daly, who he called “incredibly talented.” (Again, classic Dufty.)

It’s going to be a challenge for him to stand out in this race. He’s not going to get a lot of progressive support; he simply hasn’t been there on a lot of progressive votes and issues. It’s rare to see him defy Mayor Newsom and he’s been on the wrong side of many of the key battles of the past ten years.

He has a lot of support in his district, and among the more centrist parts of the gay community. But he’s not a big downtown guy, not a prodigious fundraiser and won’t be the next Newsom, who ran the first time with the unwavering support of the big-business community and all the money he could ever need.

And Herrera and Yee -- both with a proven track record of raising money, both with citywide name recognition -- will also be sitting in that political center. Neither of them can claim the support of the majority of the progressive supervisors (although Herrera will no doubt have former Board President Aaron Peskin on his team).

If Mirkarimi or Adachi runs, they’ll take the left flank. Yee will be the more conservative candidate, especially when he’s working the west side of town. I don’t see how Dufty finds his niche.

He doesn’t either, right now -- except to say that “I’m not running for anything else. I have no desire to go to Sacramento or Washington. I’m humble and I’m going to run a grassroots campaign.”

What he has, clearly, done is given a kind of shit-or-get-off-the-pot push to the other candidates. The race is a long way away, but with Dufty out there, raising money and seeking endorsements, Mirkarimi is going to have to decide if he’s serious, and if not, the progressives are going to have to decide if Adachi is their man, and the race is going to start firming up. There won’t be a Matt Gonzalez late entry this time around. What you see is what you get, and the late-comers will be at a disadvantage.

By Steven T. Jones

Warren Hellman was featured in the Guardian two years ago.

San Francisco financier Warren Hellman – in partnership with KQED, the UC Berkeley School of Journalism, and perhaps even the New York Times – is about to launch a nonprofit, locally focused, online news organization with a medium-sized newsroom of full-time journalists, Hellman has confirmed to the Guardian.

Hellman says he will provide $5 million in seed money for the Bay Area News Project, which is about half the annual budget for a projected staff of about two-dozen journalists, and he expects to get foundation funding and perhaps even government grants for the rest. They are currently interviewing for a managing editor, which they hope to hire in the next month or so, and expect to go live sometime next year.

“We’re forming a new media news center. Basically, it will be a not-for-profit 501c3 that will be source of Bay Area news,” Hellman said. “It will focus on local news events, including politics and the arts, the kind of thing that is just dying at the Chronicle.”

By Steven T. Jones

The Bay Area News Project – a new media collaboration that will be formally announced tomorrow, but which we wrote about earlier today – is already generating excitement from San Franciscans who have long been concerned about the journalism industry’s decline.

“I very much like the idea of another locally owned and edited news voice in San Francisco. The Guardian and I wish them well,” Bay Guardian Editor and Publisher Bruce B. Brugmann said.

While principal investor Warren Hellman discussed the project with the Guardian, none of the other local partners – KQED, UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, the Media Workers Guild, and the consulting firm McKinsey & Company, which is handling the managing editor hiring process – returned our calls or were willing to discuss the project before its formal announcement in the morning.

Yet the long-rumored news was greeted warmly by local media innovators, including some who have been closely watching the scene and waiting to see what Hellman and company would do. “I’m absolutely thrilled that significant resources are being put into an alternative business model for the local media because it’s sorely needed,” said Michael Stoll, project director for The Public Press, a noncommercial news outlet that launched earlier this year after years in development. “It represents the first hopeful sign in a long time that watchdog journalism is on the rebound.”

Story and photos by Sarah Morrison

“No cuts, no fees, education should be free,” chanted thousands of UC Berkeley faculty, staff, workers and students as they protested in Sproul Plaza against state budget cuts, increased fees, lay-offs, and poor management of the UC system during yesterday’s campus-wide walkout.

While the protests began at 7.15 am yesterday with strikes initiated by the University Professional and Technical Employees union (UPTE) and the Coalition of University Employees (CUE) throwing up a picket line at the campus, by midday the plaza was crammed full with an estimated 5000 protestors in a scene reminiscent of the Free Speech Movement of the 1960s.

Outlining how budget cuts have led to staff shortages, reduced pay, and a lack of vital university services, UC Berkeley professor of art history Timothy Clark, who has taught at the university for more than 21 years, stressed how the Berkeley community felt they had been let down by the UC Board of Regents and the California Legislature.

“The UC won’t wear us down and if they think we won’t fight back then they are mistaken,” he said. “The crisis is real but from crises comes choices. The fight is begun and the fight will continue.”

By Rebecca Bowe

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved a $3.1 billion budget yesterday for statewide energy efficiency programs that will be in place until 2012. California’s powerful investor-owned utilities --- Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company -- are in charge of implementing the programs, while the funding is derived from ratepayers.

While the decision marks the creation of the largest energy-efficiency program in the country, some question the wisdom of the colossal investment, because it relies on utility companies to implement dramatic reductions in energy use.

It's the greatest financial contribution the state utility commission has ever pledged toward energy efficiency. According to the CPUC, the potential energy savings will negate the need for three new 500-megawatt power plants, and avoid 3 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions. The funding from this decision could create between 15,000 and 18,000 green jobs, the CPUC estimates.

The decision will provide $260 million for local efforts such as municipal building retrofits. It also requires utilities to track progress toward goals and strategies established in a long-term statewide plan for reducing energy use. Included in the effort is an ambitious home-retrofit program, which sets a goal of 20 percent energy savings for up to 130,000 homes.

"This investment in California's clean energy economy is just what we need to create new jobs for our communities and fight global warming pollution," said Lara Ettenson, director of California Energy Efficiency Policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a prominent environmental organization.

Not everyone shares NRDC’s optimism, however.

The Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), an independent consumer advocacy division of the CPUC, warned that the powerful utility companies should be closely monitored to see how they make use of such a tremendous sum.

In a statement released this morning, the DRA highlighted “a continuing need for stronger mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability in the utilities’ use of the billions of dollars of ratepayer money.” Utility giant PG&E has been criticized in the past for misuse of energy-efficiency funds.

By Just A Guy

Editors note: Just A Guy is an inmate in a California state prison. His dispatches appear twice a week.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Poizner was recently quoted in the Sacramento Bee saying: “You have to be a really bad person to get into state prison. So I’m opposed to releasing people who are dangerous, absolutely opposed. That’ s no way to balance the budget.”

I’m curious to know what Poizner thinks everyone is in prison for. Does he even realize that at least 18 percent of the population is in prison for drug crimes? If so, then is he saying that all people in prison for drugs are “really bad people?”

As if the stigma of being an addict and in prison isn’t enough.

I wonder if Poizner thinks alcoholics are “really bad people” -- or just people who need a 12-step program.

What is a “really bad person” anyway? Are the many of you who have done some stupid things in your past but just didn’t get caught “really bad people” too? Or does the stereotype apply only to people in prison?

I’m opposed to the early releases of people who are dangerous, also. But how does one determine who’s dangerous? Is the 80-year-old infirm man in a wheelchair a danger? Let’s be honest -- who doesn’t have the capacity to be dangerous? Prisoner or not?

Poizner says this is no way to balance the budget. But what about the consequences of cutting even more money from other services? (See my most recent blog here.
Has he considered that the industrialization of prisons in California with the three strikes, archaic laws and sentencing, is no way to create jobs?

The other Republican gubernatorial candidate, Meg Whitman, said “the most important role government has is public safety. It’s very important to be consistent.” She’s also opposed to early releases and prison reform. Odd that the former CEO of Ebay is so short sighted about the long-term effects of the current budget and prison situation. Isn’t this a women who had to please stockholders and a board of directors and had to have insightful long-term visions planning Ebay strategy -- which she did quite successfully? I guess your strategy changes drastically when you’re selling a service as opposed to selling fear.

The only things consistent about California prison policy are lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key strategies. Most politicians are also consistently spouting tough-on-crime policy against their better judgment because they are consistently afraid of the Willie Horton syndrome.

A couple of gubernatorial candidates from the Democratic side are, amazingly, looking at prison reform as a way to alleviate some of California’s budget problems.

The biggest threat to public safety is not the people in prison or their releases (most of them are going to get out anyway). It’s consistently cutting money for health care, education, welfare and myriad other programs that help to create a brighter future for Californians. Public safety also means maintaining roads and bridges, supplying water, educating citizens etc. The best way to have public safety is to have an environment that creates hope, not antipathy.

Finally, the Canadian government is considering creating a prison system similar to California’s -- and a rather scathing indictment came out from opponents who say doing so is a bad idea.

The majority of first world countries see California and its prison policies as insane -- why can’t we see that for ourselves? It’s like we have “prison addiction.”

I wonder if people with prison addiction should be consistently labeled “really bad people.” The rest of the world seems to think so.

Text and photo by Sarah Phelan

Does San Francisco really need to sell Candlestick Point park for Lennar condos?

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has unveiled a plan to allow for all state parks to remain open without increasing Parks and Recreation budget appropriation. Does this mean the Bayview's only major park can be saved? Developers are arguing that if the state sells a chunk of the waterfront property for $50 million, the rest of the park can be saved. But environmentalists disagree, noting that Lennar simply wants the land for luxury condos.

“Working closely with my Departments of Finance and Parks and Recreation, we have successfully found a way to avoid closing parks this year,” Schwarzenegger said in a press release today. “This is fantastic news for all Californians.”

But does this mean that Sen. Mark Leno’s SB 792 is no longer necessary?

Leno’s bill would allow the state to sell a chunk of Candlestick Point State Recreation Area for $50 million, so that developer Lennar, which has entered into a nebulous public-private partnership with the city of San Francisco, can build luxury condos on this waterfront parkland.

Leno’s bill, which the Assembly and the Senate have approved, is sitting on Arnie’s desk awaiting the governor’s signature. But it has faced stiff opposition from environmental groups in recent months.

And their neutrality was only recently secured, based on the spurious argument that, without the bill’s approval, Candlestick Point SRA would have to closed in its entirerity.

But now the Governor is proposing to reduce ongoing maintenance for the remainder of 2009-10, eliminate all major equipment purchases, and reduce hours and/or days of operation at most State Park units, expenditures on seasonal staff, and staffing and operations at State Parks headquarters.

According to Arnie’s proposal, some facilities could close weekdays and be open on weekends and holidays, or portions of a unit could be closed, such as the back loop of a campground. For a park with multiple campgrounds, one whole campground or day use facility could be closed while the rest of the park remains open, while parks that already close due to seasonal conditions could see longer closures.

“Service reductions will be planned to minimize disruptions to visitors, achieve cost savings and maintain park fee revenues,” the memo says.

Hmm. Seems like Arnie’s memo just gave Candlestick Point park supporters more ammo in their ongoing quest to challenge Lennar’s plan to take 23 acres of Candlestick Point SRA.

Lennar never spelled out this plan to take a chunk of the Bayview's only major park, when they asked voters to approve Prop. G in 2008.

Instead, Prop. G was billed as a way to clean-up the abandoned Hunters Point shipyard and "create" hundreds of new acres of parkland.

It wasn’t until after Prop. G passed, that Lennar began publicly arguing that they would need 42 acres of the existing parkland, if the rest of their plan, which involves building 10,500 housing units on 770 acres of former industrial/ military land, is to pencil out. As for the new acres of parkland, that turned out to be acres of polluted shipyard that Lennar was proposing to cap with a cement cover and convert into a park.

Understandably angered, park advocates beat Lennar down to 23 acres, this fall, during the most recent round of the "parks for condos" battle.

Now, in light of Arnie's plan and the soon-to-be released environmental impact report for Lennar's massive redevelopment plan, those battlelines are perhaps, once again about to be redrawn. Only this time in favor of the park.

Stay tuned.

By Tim Redmond

My old friend Dan Roam, a former Guardian associate art director and the author of The Back of the Napkin: Solving Problems and Selling Ideas With Pictures, has taken on health-care reform.

He's done it the Dan Roam way -- by outlining the issue and the various problems and proposals with colored markers on napkins. It's a fun and useful demonstration -- although he doesn't explain why a single-payer option would make so much more sense than everything else that's on the table.

Remarkably enough, Fox News has given him a platform to explain his ideas -- and on the air, he makes a very good point. This isn't about health-care reform; it's about insurance reform. And maybe if Obama had started off saying that the issue was insurance companies instead of letting the right wing drag doctors and death panels into this, we'd all be a lot better off.

By Tim Redmond

William Safire was wrong about Vietnam. He was wrong about Watergate. He was right about poor Bert Lance, but wrong about Jimmy Carter. He was very, very wrong about Saddam Hussein, 9/11 and the Iraq War. He was, as the Telegraph of London says, “tall, dishevelled, slouching and dour.”

But Lord, what a good writer.

His conservative columns sparkled with style and wit -- and often, with intelligence (that factor so utterly missing from the right wing of American politics today). I read him regularly, not just his language columns (which got more dreary as he aged), but his political commentary, which was sharp up until the day he retired from the New York Times op-ed page.

And while he was often horrendously wrong and politically awful, he was pretty consistent. After complaining repeatedly about the climate of secrecy in the Bush Sr. administration, he made it very clear in 1992 that a president who refused to accept sunshine in the White House was unacceptable and that “this lifelong Republican” was going to vote for Bill Clinton.

(He later chided Barbara Streisand for refusing to take his phone calls. “She told me if I voted for Bill Clinton, she’d [grant an interview.} I did; she didn’t.”) And, of course, he famously turned on the Clintons, referring to Hillary as a “congenital liar.”

And unlike a lot of conservatives of his era, he was willing to change with the times. By the late 1990s, he had become pro-choice on abortion, and once commented on a rally to save Roe v. Wade: “Nothing warms the heart of an old conservative as much as seeing thousands of protestors stare decisively at the Supreme Court and demonstrate in support of the status quo.”

Back in 2003, he opened the door to conservatives accepting same-sex marriage ("I'm a 'libcon.' To that small slice of the political spectrum called libertarian conservative, personal freedom is central,” and if he were still writing today, I’m pretty sure he’d be out front on that issue (and on allowing gays in the military).

So I’ll miss the crusty old right-winger. He did a lot of damage, and when he first started writing his column in 1973, as a former Nixon speechwriter, he was an apologist for an administration that was pretty much indefensible. But he was thoughtful and somewhat open-minded and sharp and funny and creative. There are no conservative writers who come even close today.

By Steven T. Jones

It’s rude to speak ill of the recently deceased, but as I read the laudatory obituary of Don Fisher in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, it seems appropriate for us to say a few words about the legacy of a man long criticized by the Guardian for his sponsorship of right-wing and corporatist causes.

Most of what Fisher is now being praised for is how he spent his vast fortune, accumulated through The Gap clothing chain he created. Some of those expenditures (such as children’s programs and buying great art, which he arranged days before his death to have SFMOMA display) were good and many of those expenditures we opposed.

But the point to consider now is why US tax policy has allowed the Don Fishers of the world to keep so much of the wealth they accumulated – in this particular case, largely through exploitive sweatshop labor around the world -- and to use it to attack the public sector and empower corporations.

As we praise the philanthropy and generosity of Don Fisher, it’s worth asking whether the billions of dollars that he was allowed to keep (money the federal government would have appropriated for public use up until the late ‘70s, when the tax rate on top earners was as high as 90 percent) might have been better spent by our elected leaders.

By Tim Redmond

Editors note: Just a Guy is an inmate in a California state prison. His dispatches run twice a week.

By Just A Guy

An officer and I had a discussion a couple of weeks ago. I asked him a question; I don’t remember exactly what it was. But what I remember about the conversation is interesting. He told me he hated working here, that this place has the worst morale of all the prisons in California, that the administration has the corrections officers concentrating on all kinds of pettiness in order to keep them occupied -- and that there is so little violence and need to watch one another’s back that there is no unity among the COs as there is at prisons with more problems.

To me it’s very discouraging that a lack of violence and other problems endemic to prison life would be a catalyst for enmity between officers, that it would cause a lack of unity and lack of respect among the staff.

I would think it would be the goal of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to create prisons with no violence , no racial divide and prison politics and mechanism that make prison a recidivist machine.

But, as it turns out, a prison with less violence, racial division and those other mechanisms is considered an awful place to work because it creates a divide between the people running the prison.

This, my friends, is irony.

By Tim Redmond

Here's why:

Because the Senate is ready to kill the public option, because the deal is already done, and Obama has already decided that he doesn’t want to fight the insurance industry.

I keep wondering: How did the likes of Obama and Rahm Emmanuel get rolled by the insurers? How did a Democratic president with solid majorities in both houses let this get so screwed up? Why has the best chance for real reform in decades gone down the tubes?

Robert Reich thinks that the deal was cut a long time ago.

Last January, the White House made a Faustian bargain with Big Pharma and Big Insurance, essentially scuttling both of these profit-squeezing mechanisms in return for these industries' agreement not to oppose healthcare legislation with platoons of lobbyists and millions of dollars of TV ads, and Pharma's willingness to cut drug prices by some $80 billion over the next ten years. The White House promised these industries they'd come out way ahead -- getting tens of millions of new customers who'd be buying private health insurance policies and thereby paying for an almost endless supply of new drugs. Healthcare reform would be, in short, a bonanza

I knew that, sorta. I know people who were watching last spring, and they told me that the Bad Guys were at the table from the first day. I just don’t see how Obama and his team figured they could get any meaningful reform done without insurance industry opposition -- and I don’t see how they could actually believe that the industry wouldn’t do exactly what it’s done, which is to fuck with the president’s modest agenda and spend millions to be sure that nothing worthwhile happens.

Sometimes, you can’t negotiate with terrorists. It’s a hard lesson for Obama, and the country, to learn right now.

By Rebecca Bowe

In the next few years, San Francisco residents will have the opportunity to switch to electricity that is publicly owned, more environmentally friendly, and either the same price or cheaper than power supplied by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. -- if all goes according to plan.

That’s turning into a big “if.”

At a joint meeting held between the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) last Friday, LAFCo chair Sup. Ross Mirkarimi tried his best to start a fire under everyone’s rear. Clean Power SF, a public power program that will supplant PG&E in the city, had better get into gear without any foot-dragging or hesitation, Mirkarimi warned.

What’s the hurry? A proposed, PG&E-backed statewide ballot measure has cast a pall over Clean Power SF and other municipalities’ efforts at crafting public power alternatives, or Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) programs.

The PG&E-backed ballot measure would require 66 percent of voter approval before any local government could spend so much as a dime establishing a CCA, effectively creating an insurmountable hurdle. If successful, the ballot measure would snuff out any PG&E competition before it even caught on. The utility is poised to spend millions collecting signatures and pushing it through, and it has until Dec. 21 to gather the 694,354 signatures needed to place it on the ballot next year.

By Steven T. Jones

Reactions by many mainstream media journalists to the formation of the Bay Area News Project – a nonprofit news operation supported by KQED, the UC Berkeley School of Journalism, California Newspaper Guild, financier Warren Hellman, and possibly The New York Times – have been hostile, petty, dismissive, self-serving, and misleading.

It’s no wonder the public has turned away from big newspapers and is clamoring for media reform. Rather than focusing on the public benefits of more journalism, mainstream media journalists seem to have adopted the media consolidation mindset of their corporate masters.

A central theme of the criticism has been wariness of competition. The SF Appeal today reports on a memo to San Francisco Chronicle staff written by Metro Editor Audrey Cooper in which she vows “to smash whomever is naive enough to poke their noses in our market.”

Friday’s Chronicle story on the news, which was buried back in the business section and written by James Temple, frets, “some believe it could also threaten the remaining local news industry.” That trope was also sounded in an East Bay Express blog post by Robert Gammon (formerly of the Oakland Tribune, which is part of the anti-competitive MediaNews empire) entitled “UC Berkeley Threatens Bay Area Journalism.”

Yet there’s a rather obvious central flaw to their arguments: the nonprofit project won’t be competing for advertising revenue, so it won’t force “Bay Area news organizations to make further cuts to stay competitive,” as Gammon claims. Journalists competing to do better and better work is the kind of healthy competition that benefits everyone and shouldn’t cost anyone their jobs.

By Steven T. Jones

While reading the Sunday New York Times, I was surprised to see the magazine’s Q&A with UC President Mark Yudof – and dismayed by the timing and glib tone that he took.

Just days after UC faculty, employees, and students took to the streets in protest of Yudof’s anti-democratic approach to making deep cuts and huge tuition hikes, here he is playing the cutesy wannabe celebrity who jokes about his lack of commitment to and qualifications for this important job.

And when given the chance to criticize Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger – which would seem a natural, given that he’s been blaming state government for his own destructive decisions – he dutifully plays the good company man and says of the dangerous defunding of higher education, “This is a long-term secular trend across the entire country. Higher education is being squeezed out. It’s systemic.”

WTF? So the head of the UC is fine with just giving up on the public university system? And apparently I’m not the only one bothered by this interview, which Sen. Leland Yee – who has rightfully been hard on the UC in recent years – and others savage in the following press release that he just sent out.

By Tim Redmond

I have two kids (with piano, gymnastics, tae kwon do, PTA and assorted play dates and sleepovers), a busy job, a dog to walk, dirty dishes to wash ... you know the drill. So I haven’t been able to watch every minute of every episode of Ken Burns magnum opus on the national park system. I don’t think I know anyone who has that kind of time these days.

But I tuned in for a while last night, to Episode Two, which tracks John Muir, Teddy Roosevelt, the Antiquities Act etc., and I walked away with a very clear message:

This is a series about what government does right.

In the segment I saw, the feds were the good guys -- Congress was saving wild areas, and when the western ranchers and developers tried to commercialize the Grand Canyon (in the name of private enterprise), Roosevelt used his authority to block them, infuriating the states-rights and anti-government Westerners but (of course) preserving what everyone know agrees is a national treasure.

There was a fabulous quote from environmental journalist Juanita Green.

“In other parts of the world,” she says, “there are places that are wild because some nobleman decreed it. In the United States, we don’t need a nobleman. ... that’s democracy.”

At a time when the mayor of San Francisco is lauding the death of a billionaire who believed just the opposite -- that the private sector should decide what gets saved and that private philanthropy (from fortunes built on tax cuts) is a better solution than public spending (fueled by taxes on the wealthy), we all ought to think about that a little.

If the national parks are “America’s best idea,” as Burns dubs his documentary, then the best thing this nation has ever done is exerted government supremacy over the private sector when it comes to the use of land. It’s sad to think how radical that sounds today.

By Tim Redmond

The governor’s tax-reform commission released its report today, and it probably won’t amount to much, because nobody seems to like it.

But the report shows how badly skewed the whole notion of “tax reform” has been warped in this state. The central premise of the report is that the top income tax rate -- the rate that the very rich pay -- should be reduced, and the overall income tax structure flattened. The argument: Since the income of the richest Californians changes with the economy, flattening out the tax structure will give us more budget stability.

But that’s an utter crock. As Lenny Goldberg, the director of the California Tax Reform Association, notes:

1. The top personal income tax rate should not be lowered, since figures presented to the Commission demonstrate clearly that the volatility problem is a function of the distribution of income, not a steeply progressive tax. In fact, the tax is relatively flat, assessing the same marginal rate on the upper-middle class (90k +) as the very rich, with a very quick ride through the brackets. If anything, the bracket structure should reflect the federal structure, which has increasing brackets and rates at $137,000, $208,000, and $372,000.

As Phil Spilberg’s presentation on March 16 pointed out, the top 1% take an extraordinary share of income (25%), nearly doubling since the early 1990’s. Their tax burden moves consistently with their share of income, so their disproportionate share of taxes is a function of their disproportionate share of income. That fact alone is what leads to volatility, but lowering their tax burden only exacerbates the mal-distribution of income. And any tax cuts share income with the federal government at a marginal rate of 35%, likely to become 39.6%, so are effectively a capital outflow.

In other words, the reason that tax receipts drop off so much during recessions is that the very rich have too much of the state’s total income. If anything, the tax rate is too flat now.

I’m somewhat intrigued by the new business tax proposals, which amount to what the Europeans call a “value added tax.” You take the total sales of a business, subtract its total costs, and tax the net proceeds, which are supposed to represent the value added during production. It’s a little trickier when you apply that to services, but I don’t think any sane person watching the state’s tax system disagrees with the concept that services ought to be taxed.

But overall, the tax reform commission has offered a very limited perspective -- which is too bad, because California’s tax system is a mess and badly needs a comprehensive overhaul.

By Rebecca Bowe

Photo courtesy Luke Thomas, Fog City Journal

Here’s the scoop: The San Francisco Bay Guardian will get 50 megawatts of wind power, courtesy of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Don’t get excited -- the mayor was only kidding. Newsom’s witty remark came in response to a question by local journalist and blogger Luke Thomas, when he asked the mayor who would own the energy being generated by the municipal wind turbines that are envisioned throughout the city in a report unveiled today.

Newsom’s response: "I hope it's the Bay Guardian."

SFBG publisher Bruce B. Brugmann was delighted by the news, and immediately emailed a San Francisco Chronicle City Hall reporter to say he was available for comment on how he plans to use the power.

The press conference was held to announce the recommendations of San Francisco’s Urban Wind Power Task Force, a group convened to study possibilities for small urban wind projects in the city. The vision involves siting turbines at famous city landmarks, mapping micro-climates to figure out how best to harness wind energy potential, and making it easier for small urban wind projects to be permitted.

“Wind needs to be part of the urban mix,” Newsom said. “There are still a lot of questions, but nonetheless there’s a lot of enthusiasm.” Wind-power demonstration sites could include the Civic Center Plaza, The W Hotel, a new San Francisco Public Utilities Commission headquarters on Golden Gate Ave., and Treasure Island, Newsom said.

My question for Newsom was whether the city’s Community Choice Aggregation effort, which has a stated goal of supplying publicly owned power generated by 51 percent renewable energy by 2017, would be integrated into the bold new wind-development plans. The overarching vision of the Wind Power Task Force report is to develop 50 megawatts of wind power over the next few decades, a much longer time line than the initial 2017 target established by CCA. Newsom replied, “It certainly could be. I haven’t gotten that far along.”

To which we’d like to respond: Did you have a nice time on that PG&E-funded trip to Mexico?

By Steven T. Jones

The state crackdown on SF clubs has Prohibition Era echoes, but this time it's using arcane rules to mask its moral concerns.

In the wake of a judge’s ruling that state officials were improperly enforcing arbitrary rules in cracking down on the Great American Music Hall and other San Francisco venues, the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control has dropped its case against GAMH.

The decision comes after a Guardian report in June about how the ABC was using strange and irrelevant legal technicalities to go after such venerable San Francisco nightlife hotspots at GAMH, Slim’s, Bottom of the Hill, DNA Lounge, and other assorted nightclubs.

Unfortunately, the ABC is expressing defiance as it continues what some believe is a moral crusade by conservative bureaucrats hostile to San Francisco values. The agency wrote in a press release: “The Administrative Law Judge held that while Great American Music Hall had in fact changed its operation, the regulation relied upon by the ABC was ambiguous. While ABC does not agree with the Administrative Law Judge’s ruling, and has not accepted the proposed decision, it has decided to dismiss the action against the Great American Music Hall.”

But GAMH attorney John Hinman told the San Francisco Chronicle that he hopes the ruling will encourage the agency to back off of the other clubs as well: “There’s no reason to move them forward.”

By Rebecca Bowe

In this image of the Bay Area, the light blue shows areas that would be inundated with a 16-inch sea-level rise, and the dark blue shows areas impacted by a 55-inch sea-level rise.

When it comes to San Francisco Bay waterfront development, sea-level rise is a long-term threat that policymakers, developers, and coastal communities are just beginning to consider seriously. As we report in today’s Green City, water levels in the Bay are projected to rise as high as 16 inches by the middle of this century, and 55 inches by 2100, in worst-case scenarios, as a consequence of climate change.

San Francisco Bay: Preparing for the Next Level, a report issued by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and a trio of Dutch research and engineering firms, begins to lay out the possible implications of sea-level rise and offer possible mitigation strategies.

Here are a few images from that report depicting not just what may loom ahead, but how engineers from the Netherlands have suggested we deal with it.

By Tim Redmond

So the Fire Department is worried about pot farms in the Sunset catching on fire. That's valid -- a lot of underground growers patch into the electrical grid illegally and don't exactly follow the highest fire-safety standards. And we know the stuff burns nice.

But why does this have to be a problem? Why can't the city simply legalize pot farms by allowing that use under city planning and building inspection codes? We already have legal nurseries in the city; I don't think it would be a huge step to issue permits for indoor nurseries, set fire standards, require safety inspections (before the seeds are planted but after the electricity, plumbing and lights are hooked up), mandate on-site security and then take a don't ask-don't tell approach to the whole scene?

We'd get a better class of growers (people who operate legally don't tend to have big caches of nasty weapons), we'd get some tax revenue -- and most important, we'd be able to prevent fires. Once there was a legal way to do this, the underground operators would be forced out and the Sunset would be safe and secure once again.

Who wants to take this one on?

Text and photos by Sarah Phelan

Remember how Mayor Gavin Newsom leaked a confidential City Attorney memo about the implications of Sup. David Campos’ proposal to extend due process to undocumented youth?

And how Newsom made everyone else wait two weeks before deigning to release said memo, even though he told the Guardian that he had every right to waive his attorney-client privilege and distribute the Campos memo to whomsoever he pleased?

Well, this week a number of folks are preparing to file complaints with the Sunshine Taskforce a) about the Mayor’s Office’s selective release of this memo and b) his office’s subsequent refusal to release any other communications related to the leak.

And today, a group of civil rights organizations released a legal brief that responds to City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s leaked memo on the city’s immigrant youth policy. (You can read the brief in full here.)

Also today, Sup. David Campos participated in a tele-press conference in which legal experts and professors explained why Campos’ proposed amendment, which has an Oct. 5 hearing before the Board of Supervisors’ Public Safety Committee, is legally tenable and defensible.

And along the way, Campos and these experts, who included Angie Junck of the Immigrant Legal Resources Center, Robert Rubin of the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights, Julia Mass of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Northern California, Professor Bill Ong Hing of UC Davis Law School and Angela Chan of the Asian Law Caucus, succeeded in debunking a number of myths about the Campos amendment.

As the brief explains, the Campos’ proposal, "will allow immigrant youth to have their day in court and be heard by an impartial judge, ensuring due process is upheld for all of San Frnacisco’s youth,” “ensure that families are not torn apart because a youth is mistakenly referred for deportation,” “encourage cooperation between law enforcement and immigrant communities by reestablishing a relationship based on trust and therefore increasing public safety,” “lessen the risk that the city will be liable for racial profiling, unlawful detention and mistaken referrals of U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants for deportation,” and “bring the city’s juvenile probation practices into compliance with state confidentiality laws for youth.”

And as today's brief further explains, the Campos proposal won’t prevent referral to ICE of youth who have sustained felony charges and won’t put the sanctuary ordinance at risk.

“The sanctuary ordinance has stood strong for twenty years, and the proposed amendment strengthens the ordinance by taking steps to bring the city’s practices more into compliance with state juvenile justice law,” states the civil rights brief, which was prepared by the Asian Law Caucus, Legal Services for Children, Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, San Francisco Immigrant Legal & Education Network, and the San Francisco Immigrant Rights Defense Committee.

“In short, the legislation is a measured step in the right direction that will help restore accountability and fairness in the City’s treatment of immigrant youth.”

And as Campos told reporters today, his proposed amendment, “ is something we drafted very carefully in close consultation with the City Attorney’s office.”