Text by Sarah Phelan

Groups like Americans for Prosperity want to revive Reagonomics. At the cost of your public health care option.

Just got an email from Americans For Prosperity, which bills itself as "being committed to educating citizens about economic policy and a return of the federal government to its Constitutional limits." In other words, AFP is yet another right wing pit bull that favors the free-for-all market economic philosophy, which brought us Enron and the subprime mortgage fiasco, in which the rich get richer with minimum accountability and responsibility to the very tax payers that they allegedly champion. Sweet.

And this time, AFP is announcing a National Call Congress Day (Oct. 5), which they claim is necessary, "As Democratic Leaders Continue to Rush Radical Health Care Reform," as well as rallying folks to the 2009 Defending the American Dream Summit in Arlington, Virginia (see banner above), replete with pix of Ronald Reagan. Lovely.

AFP, which also champions "exposing the ballooning costs of global warming hysteria," boasts as its current Vice President Ed Frank, a former Bush staffer, who last year described the congressional showdown over off-shore drilling as "a political fight the free-market guys actually can win."

Hmm. In other words, the folks opposing public health care option are the same folks who supported Palin's "drill, baby drill" mantra last year? Nice. No wonder APF raked in over $ 5 million in 2007 alone.

Yeah, well it sounds like Oct 5 is a good day to call Congress, and demand a public health care option by telling your local representative the simple truth: including a public health care option is the morally right thing to do. Period.

Text by Sarah Phelan

Jerry Brown is reporting via Twitter that Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen--Hollywood's Big Three in terms of political fundraising--are throwing down in support of Brown's gubernatorial bid.

Obama raised millions via this threesome's efforts, so it'll be interesting to see how the Newsom campaign responds to this fiscal challenge...

By Just A Guy

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

By Just A Guy
 
It’s been about six months since Tim Redmond asked the question, should prisoners be allowed cell phones? Back in April, there was quite a furor about inmates and cell phones, but since that time there hasn't been much mention of it, so I thought I would chime in on the subject, as it bears discussion and analysis.

 The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation claims that inmates having cell phones is a huge security risk -- that we can plan escapes, plan simultaneous riots, or call in hits on people. While all those things are true, they are certainly things that were done in prisons by inmates before cell phones existed! Cell phones just make those things quicker to accomplish.

 Those are words meant to scare the public into believing the inmates that do have cell phones all use their phones for negative things.

Another reason that CDCR is against cell phones, just possibly, is that cell phones have things like cameras, video records, and voice recorders. God forbid an inmate take a picture of a cop “sleeping the toughest beat,” or take a video of cops beating someone's ass, or maybe recording conversations in which the officers or others were threatening or just disrespectful.

 Today’s technology even allows for real-time streaming if you have the right type of phone. Can you imagine the doors of possibility that this opens up? Hello, You Tube!
 And what about the amount of money that the collect-call phones generate for GTL.

Doesn’t CDCR get $30 million a year from GTL for giving them the contract?

Few folks know that even though the collect call phones we are allowed to use are monitored, there is really no way for the staff to find out who made a call. And this is especially true if you make a three-way call; they can know the number you dialed but not the third-party number. Also, you ever heard of call forwarding? Duh!
 
What if CDCR contracted with a company like AT&T? Here’s what I propose:
 AT&T or the like should be allowed to sell phones to prisoners. There could only be one type of phone, and this found would not have a camera or Internet capability, but would have text. There could be a number of different plans for inmates to choose, from cheapo to unlimited minutes.

 The provider would be responsible for the monitoring the calls and text messages. (They could even contract this out.) All cell calls go through supercomputers anyway, and those computers have very complex algorithms that can detect all kinds of stuff, from key words to language spoken. (The Department of Defense uses this technology).

 Each phone would be registered to the purchaser so that if anything unlawful was done, it could automatically be attributed to the registered user. If there is someone at CDCR, or any other agency, that is suspicious of, how much easier will it be to track their calls? Using another inmate's phone would result in your phone privilege being suspended as well as that of the inmate who allowed you to use his or her phone.  
Maybe there could be a limit on the number the phones could dial.  There would be a limit on hours of operation, say, 6 am to 10 pm. The scenarios are endless on how CDCR could control this.

Imagine -- what cell phone company wouldn’t be interested in having its customer base increase by 160,000 users, with no competition?

 Before cell phones came to prisons, the collect-call phones we are allowed to use were busy all day and there was a line to use them. Now they are empty all day.

 I’ve done the math before, but here is is again: Ninety six collect call phones (in this prison) being used a minimum of 12 hours a day. With calls limited to 15 minutes at a minimum of $3 a call. One phone generates a minimum of $144 a day. Times 96 phones equals a minimum of $13,824 a day, times 365 days a year equals $5 million a year. I wonder what the net profit of that $5 million is? Remember too that there are 33 prisons in California -- and even if you cut my numbers in half, it’s still $2.5 million, at just one prison.

 You know the very same people who are saying it’s a huge security issue are the ones bringing in the phones -- ‘cause I have yet to meet an inmate capable of sticking a cell phone, charger, and headset up his ass, let alone in the visiting room.

 By the way, that $29.99 version mobile phone you can buy at Best Buy costs $600 in here. Who do you suppose is making that profit?
 
And while possession of cell phone in prison is not a crime, it would be great to get some statistics on how many raids are focused on cell phones vs. drugs - -- and possession of drugs is a felony.

 Look, there are fucking cell-phone sniffing dogs now. It’s safer to be a drug dealer in prison than a cell phone user. because they rarely go for the dealer. Why should they -- we’re only hurting ourselves with the drugs anyway.
 

By Tim Redmond

The mayor is getting a wee bit sensitive about a flier from SEIU local 1021 that accuses him of breaking his word during contract talks. And he’s clearly getting more and more angry at the 1021 activists who are following him to fundraising events and making noise about his labor record. (The union plans to appear in Los Angeles Oct. 5 when Newsom holds a gala with Bill Clinton)

In fact, on Sept 28th, around 6:45 p.m., union member (and certified nurses assistant) Evalyn Morales approached the mayor at a Filipino Americans for Progress event and handed him a copy of the flier (PDF). It charges that the mayor had cut a deal with the union that he hasn’t kept:

“The deal was that city workers would make $38 million in concessions to help with the city’s half-billion budget deficit if the city would let the workers keep their jobs long enough (5 more months) for government, business and city workers to put a revenue measure on the Nov. 2009 ballot. .... Suddenly, the deal’s off ... Newsom and his board allies prevented a revenue measure from reaching the ballot.”

And it notes that 600 union workers have received layoff notices -- and virtually all of them are women of color.

(They’re also mostly lower-level jobs -- the Management Employees Association hasn’t faced any real layoffs, and the mayor’s staffers -- including five people in the press office -- continue to be well compensated.)

Newsom, according to Morales, was furious to see the flier. And apparently he lost his shit. Here’s her account of the interaction, taken from a sworn statement she filed with the union:

“He said ‘this is a lie,’ referring to the flier. “I don’t want to do anything to deal with the union. I hate Robert [SEIU organizer Robert Haaland]. What you’re doing now is hurting me .... I hate Robert. I don’t want to do anything for the union.”

Harsh.

In fact, Local 1021 is planning to file a complaint with California’s Public Employee Relations Board citing the mayor’s statements as intimidation and harassment.

Now: I can’t speak to the legality of what the mayor did under labor law, but I can say that it fits in with something we’ve seen all too much over the years: Newsom loses his temper over little stuff. He can’t take a punch; the minute you go after him he gets all pissy and says stupid stuff (like “I hate Robert.” How statesmanlike and gubernatorial.)

Nathan Ballard, his press secretary, isn’t exactly conciliatory, either. Here’s what he sent me when I asked him about the incident:

By Sarah Morrison

Bay Area musicians, educators, and spiritual and secular leaders will come together next week at San Francisco’s UN Plaza for the first-ever public eulogy to honor the tens of thousands of people who die around the world each day from poverty-related causes.

The event, which will take place on Oct. 8 starting at 7.30 pm, is being hosted by Honor the Dead -- a non-partisan organisation that is dedicated to raising awareness of global poverty -- in the attempt to inspire individuals to take action on international issues of inequality.

By Guardian News Staff
Every year, when the Guardian covers the release of Project Censored’s list of underreported news story, we also try to list a few local stories that didn’t get the coverage they deserve. For 2009, they include:

Gavin Newsom's no-new-taxes budget
When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Republicans in Sacramento insisted that they wouldn't raise taxes to address the budget deficit, it was big news -- and plenty of San Francisco officials were critical. When Mayor Gavin Newsom took the exact same stance -- no new taxes -- the news media largely ignored the story and let him off the hook.

What happened to the tax measures?
Last winter, there were big fights over putting revenue measures on the fall ballot. Progressives dug in and fought through a mayoral veto. Commissions were convened. Polls were taken. Promises were made. And then the election deadline simply passed and it was as if the whole thing never happened.

The demise of newspapers
The San Francisco Chronicle has done a few, weak stories about its own extensive layoffs, and other news outlets have discussed the paper's shaky finances. And the news industry fretted about MediaNews gobbling up most Bay Area newspapers. But there's been little deep analysis or attention to the end game: What would San Francisco be like with no daily newspaper? Is that where this city is headed? Who will speak truth to power?

By Steven T. Jones

The US Supreme Court has delayed a decision on the Golden Gate Restaurant Association's legal challenge to the Healthy San Francisco program, instead asking for the Obama Administration's opinion on whether the required employer contributions that fund the universal health care plan violate federal law.

The GGRA suit contends the employer mandate violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), a view that was supported by the Bush Administration but opposed by the city and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, whose ruling against GGRA the Supreme Court is deciding whether to hear, a decision that had been expected today. President Barack Obama has publicly cited Healthy San Francisco as a model for health care reform and City Attorney Dennis Herrera has personally lobbied the administration to reverse the previous administration's position, and now the court wants a formal opinion from Obama's Solicitor General Elena Kagan.

"The Bush Labor Department's position was not simply wrong as a matter of law, it was wrong for fundamentally ignoring the urgent need for health care reform," Herrera said in a public statement. "I am hopeful that the new administration will not take such a knee-jerk position, but will instead thoroughly review the legal and policy implications of the case."

By Tim Redmond

My cell phone battery was dead, so I didn't get pictures, but I'll give you the slogans on may two favorite T-SHirts from the Castro Street Fair Sunday:

1. "Marriage is SO gay"

2. "I'd fuck me."

And bright sunshine and cold beer ... you couldn't beat it.

By Tim Redmond

The members of SEIU Local 1021 have agreed to stand down for a day, suspend their unfair labor practices claim and hold off on sending protesters to Mayor Gavin Newsom's campaign events -- and he's agreed to meet with the union tomorrow (Tuesday) morning to discuss their grievances.

Larry Bevan, a Local 1021 shop steward who works as a site tech at Laguna Honda Hospital, told me that Labor Council director Tim Paulson has agreed to mediate the discussion.

"I am told that the mayor will be there personally," Bevan said. "Going through intermediaries doesn't seem to be working."

The union wants to challenge the mayor to live up to his promise during budget season -- that he'd work to find a way to raise new revenue this fall so that 600 union members, most of them women of color, most of them front-line service workers in the Department of Public Health, wouldn't face layoffs.

It's too late for a ballot measure to raise new revenue. That plan fell apart when it became clear that the supervisors would not unanimously declare a state of fiscal emergency -- a move that would have allowed a revenue measure to pass with a simple majority of the vote. WIthout all 11 supervisors, any attempt to raise taxes would require an insurmountable two-thirds majority.

The Oakland City Council agreed unanimously to seek new revenue, but in San Francisco, Supervisors Sean Elsbernd, Michela Alioto and Carmen Chu refused. All three were originally Newsom appointees.

Elsbernd told me that the mayor's office tried to get him on board, but he refused to bend. The reforms that the mayor was proposing weren't strong enough to get the relatively conservative supervisor to drop his opposition to new taxes. "Oh, they tried, all right," Elsbernd said. "But the reform was bogus. I said no."

But I have to wonder how serious Newsom was: He never picked up the phone and called Elsbernd personally. His chief of staff, Steve Kava, did that job.

Sorry, Mr. Mayor -- when there are millions of dollars and hundreds of jobs on the line, if you actually want to get a reluctant supervisor who owes his career to you on your side, you talk to him personally. It still might not have worked -- but sending an aide over with the message was clearly doomed to fail. It almost seems as if Newsom was fine with that.

At any rate, the unions will try to get Newsom's support for a new fee on alcoholic beverages, money that could go directly to DPH. Maybe he'll go along; maybe he'll drag his feet. Still, Local 1021 got him to the table, which these days, with this mayor, is quite an accomplishment.

By Tim Redmond

>
Maufas didn't steal money or cheat the public

Let’s get this out of the way immediately, so my dear commenter trolls won’t take my head off and call me a hypocrite: I don’t think Kim-Shree Maufas should have used her school district credit card for personal expenses. It wasn’t illegal, and she quickly reimbursed the district for all those expenses -- but it still wasn’t a good idea.

And I fully agree that the daily newspaper in town has every right and responsibility to check the expenses of all public officials and local agencies.

But let’s have a little perspective here: Was this really such a huge scandal that it deserved to be the lead story on the front page of the Sunday Chronicle?

Because the more I look into it, the more I think it’s really not front-page news.

Text and photos by Sarah Phelan

Sup. David Campos’ proposal to amend the city’s sanctuary ordinance so that it extends due process to youth inched one step closer to becoming law, today.

During the Oct. 5 meeting of the Board’s Public Safety Committee, Board President David Chiu and Sup. Ross Mirkarimi recommended that the Campos proposal be sent to the full Board for consideration later this month.

Sup. Michela Alioto-Pier, who said she wanted the Campos proposal to be first heard in a closed session of the Board, voted against Chiu and Mirkarimi's recommendation.

But as Campos noted, the legal implications of his proposal have already been publicly aired, thanks to Mayor Gavin Newsom’s decision to leak a confidential City Attorney memo to the Chronicle—a memo now posted at the Mayor’s website.

“I know a lot has been said about this piece of civil rights legislation,” Campos said at today's hearing “And this is a piece of civil rights legislation that deals with the specifics of the city’s sanctuary ordinance and more precisely a very narrow and measured amendment to that legislation.”

“And I understand the very important role that the supervisors play in a number of issues involving civil rights,” added Campos, noting that he was sitting in the seat once occupied by Sup. Harvey Milk, the now legendary gay rights activist.

Campos also thanked the dozens of civil and human rights organizations that support his legislation, including several LGBTQ groups, and his seven co-sponsors on the Board—Board President David Chiu and Sups. John Avalos, Bevan Dufty, Eric Mar, Sophie Maxwell, Ross Mirkarimi and Chris Daly.

Together, these colleagues have given Campos a veto-proof majority in face of Mayor Gavin Newsom’s ongoing opposition towards Campos’ proposed changes.

That opposition crystallized in August, when Newsom leaked a confidential memo to the Chronicle, in an apparent effort to deal the Campos legislation a preemptive strike.

Text and photos by Sarah Phelan

Is this man the true face of those who want immigrant kids deported without a chance to prove their innocence?

Yesterday, hundreds showed up to support Sup. David Campos proposal that the city's sanctuary policy be amended so that only immigrant youth who have actually committed a felony be referred to the feds for deportation. And during the four-hour hearing that ensued, only two people showed up to oppose the Campos amendment.

One of these two opponents is pictured above (forgive the ochre hue, but lighting in the Board chambers is tricky) and he seemed to be slurring his words.

The other described himself as an "openly gay person" and asserted that his sexual orientation is "not a choice."

"But coming here is in violation of federal law," this gentleman continued. "As a tax paying resident, I resent my tax dollars being used to settle a claim of the Bologna family, because the city failed to deport Edwin Ramos."

Kudos to this gentleman, who didn't share his name, for laying out the nativist argument against giving immigrant kids a chance to prove their innocence. (Especially since no one from the Mayor's Office showed up to defend Newsom's policy, which he implemented last July without any public input or notice.)

But as Campos politely pointed out to this gay, tax-paying resident, if the amendment which Campos is proposing was already in place, Ramos would have been deported while he was a youth.

And as others pointed out during yesterday's hearing, some youth come here to escape persecution for their sexual orientation, others come because their parents brought them when they were very young, others come to send money to their cash-strapped families, and others were born here to undocumented parents and have never set foot in Latin America, even though some folks assume they are undocumented just because they are brown.

But let's face it, those on the right who oppose the Campos amendment aren't going to be swayed by reason, not when it comes to banging the drum for a good ol' wedge issue like immigration, just before the 2010 elections.

By Rebecca Bowe

The toll that the economy is taking on low-income families was painfully apparent at yesterday’s Land Use and Economic Development Committee hearing, when single mothers with weary eyes asked city supervisors to help them stay in their homes.

The hearing was being held to discuss Sup. John Avalos’ proposed legislation to extend a rental-subsidy program administered by the city’s Human Services Agency (HSA) from two years to a maximum of five years. “We have a recession that’s pretty deep, and it is affecting a lot of families in a pretty hard way,” Avalos said. “Families, especially low-income families, are finding it more and more difficult to maintain their employment.”

With unemployment soaring, and many of the people in this program facing challenges such as having a lack of marketable skills, health problems, or language barriers, work prospects are dwindling. Many of the people who testified during public comment said that they were within days of losing their rental subsidies.

“I’m scared to wind up out on the street with my kids,” a woman who spoke in Spanish said via a translator. Many people who enrolled in the program in 2007 have received letters telling them that the city can no longer provide the subsidy, because they’ve reached the program time limit. A phone number for a homeless shelter was listed among the suggested alternatives in the letters, but the shelter has a six-month waiting list. Meanwhile, there are an estimated 17,000 people on the wait-list for public housing in the city.

Throughout the public hearing, small children could be heard crying in the background.

By Just A Guy

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

By Just A Guy

There are a lot of things I would like to talk about, to be more explicit about, but fear of retaliation stops me, for now.

One of the things I find disconcerting is how many of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation staff and administrators have the ability to lie to cover up things without any thought of being held accountable. CDCR’s staff are able to do whatever they want, with impunity, because they believe that most people just don’t care what happens to inmates.

Sadly, this belief is mostly true -- they can lie, cover up, spend your money and do whatever they want to inmates. They can, and they do.

When the jailer becomes guilty of the same sins as the jailed, but is allowed to continue because he or she is “just doing it to inmates” something is fundamentally flawed.

Some of the CDCR staff justify their behavior because it’s the only way many of them can sleep at night. The fact is that if you do things at the expense of others for personal gain or to protect yourself you are wrong, just as most of us were wrong in the crimes we committed that hurt other people and landed us in prison.

“People are sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment.”

How can the same people that say they are protecting the public use diabolical means and excuses to do whatever they want to inmates, but not be judged for it?

What makes those people at CDCR guilty of such acts exempt from investigation or suspicion? I guess Abu Ghraib is okay when it’s inmates in California.

By Steven T. Jones

The Guardian explored the politics of parking in our July 1 cover package.

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which will soon consider a long-awaited study into how to generate more than $1 million in additional parking meter revenue that was part of a May budget deal, faces another test of whether it is truly an independent agency or merely Mayor Gavin Newsom’s puppet.

As the backlash over extended meter hours in Oakland caused the City Council there to cave in to driver and merchant demands, Newsom – who likes to dress in green but has never really challenged the dominant car culture’s sense of entitlement – has signaled that he now wants to break the deal he helped broker and stop meter hours from being extended.

But under 2007’s Proposition A, which Newsom supported, this isn’t a decision for either the mayor or the Board of Supervisors, but instead for the theoretically independent MTA board. In fact, the whole argument for that change was based on giving that body the power to do the right thing even when craven, conflict-averse politicians get cold feet.

“Any decision on whether to extend meter hours is under the SFMTA Board of Directors,” confirmed SFMTA spokesperson Judson True, who also said the study is almost complete and could be released as soon as next week. He said it is a “study of parking with a variety of factors that will determine whether extended hours is a good idea.”

Drivers and merchants may squawk over extending meters into the evening hours, but with the city failing to put general revenue measures on the ballot and motorists not even coming close to paying for their full impacts and use of public spaces, this is a basic equity issue.

Muni riders took the biggest hit in the May budget deal, with their fares doubling since Newsom took office. Unlike in Oakland, San Francisco is well-served by public transportation, so there’s no good reason why motorists need such fiscal coddling. Newsom may be afraid, but the MTA board shouldn’t be.

By Tim Redmond

Well, I’m really sorry I missed the Democratic Party gala Wednesday night. Apparently it was quite a show. Brian Leubitz has a great report at Calitics on the unexpected appearance of Gov. Schwarzenegger and the overwhelmingly negative response by the attendees, including Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, who stood up and shouted “You Lie!”

“It was political theater of the type we love,” Ammiano told me.

Seriously, though: Former Mayor Willie Brown apparently told the guv that the event was happening, and since Schwarzenegger was in the same hotel for a President’s Cup event, he decided (perhaps at Brown’s invitation, it’s not entirely clear) just to drop by. And everyone was supposed to act all nice and pretend that they’re aren’t real, serious issues in Sacramento and that the governor isn’t really, really screwing up the state and hurting a lot of people.

“This wasn’t the Legislative Chambers, where you have to put up with this shit,” Ammiano said.. “It’s like this guy just showed up and took a big dump in my living room.”

Labor folks weren’t happy, either, and a bunch of them walked out. Then Ammiano (and we should all give thanks that he’s in the Legislature, reminding everyone what San Francisco stands for) accepted an award and made a speech:

And then he proceeded to bludgeon the Governor's record. He questioned why he was holding bills hostage to get a bad water deal. He questioned why a Governor who has vetoed the Harvey Milk Day bill would stand up in front of a room that was at least 25% LGBT. He politely asked Mayor Brown to send a message to the governor to sign the bills already.

And finally, Senator Mark Leno closed the proceedings for the evening. Leno took a different tack than Ammiano's passion. He simply stated the facts. He said that the events of this evening were all funny and stuff, but the fact is that this Governor had cut state workers salaries by 15% with the furloughs. This Governor wanted to cut IHSS salaries to minimum wage. This Governor illegally used the line item veto to slash funding for domestic violence shelters. And that he, and the Senate Democrats, were going to fight him tooth and nail.

And to a loud applause, Leno stepped off the stage and the crowd began to thin. And everybody was saying, "um, wow."

The other thing Ammiano said in his speech was that Democrats have gotten a little lax on standing up for their friends -- and he mentioned both ACORN and Kim-Shree Maufas, and both times was met with huge applause.

And, of course, the Chron’s Carla Marinucci focused her reporton Willie Brown’s comments about how inappropriate this all was and how everyone needed to make nice to poor Arnold. But there are serious issue here that aren’t just fun and games, and when the stakes are as high as they are here, I’m glad to see them Democrats (or at least some of them) deciding not to play so nice with a governor who is smiling while he drives the state into bankruptcy and despair.

PS: Ammiano told me that when Marinucci called him, she seems astounded that he had said “kiss my gay ass” while walking out of the governor’s speech. “I told her, I don’t remember, but I probably did say that,” Ammiano said. “After all, it’s safe sex.”

By Ryan Thomas Riddle

Today, as Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting and the Archdiocese of San Francisco continue their ongoing battle over millions in transfer tax revenue, witnesses on both sides are being called to testify in this high-stakes case.

The two sides previously squared off on Tuesday, Oct. 6, when Ting got to present his side of the case before the Transfer Tax Review Board, countering church officials’ claims that their extensive 2008 property transfers doesn’t qualify for taxation. But the Assessor’s Office told the Guardian that it will take time before there is a resolution.

At issue are the diocese’s transferred properties, valued at anywhere from $210 million to $1.25 billion. If that’s the case then the transfer tax revenue could fall somewhere between $3 and $15 million, and more could be collected in property taxes once the properties are reassessed.

By Steven T. Jones

Whether or not President Barack Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize – which is a subject of great debate today by the commenting class – it’s important to note how a simple change in tone by the US is being so enthusiastically welcomed and greeted with such hope by the Nobel Committee and people around the world.

Obama has long advocated talking with our enemies instead of simply threatening them or issuing ultimatums, a stand that has been criticized as naïve by Establishment voices. But it is the politically dominant American view that is naïve, this sense that we are somehow morally superior and can dictate our values to others, equating belligerence and violence with toughness, and diplomacy – listening, talking, trying to pick the best solution from a field of bad options – with weakness.

But the toughest stand Obama has taken is his insistence on talking to Iran’s leaders, as well as those from other despotic regimes. We gain nothing from isolating our enemies. Economic sanctions didn’t topple Saddam Hussein and they won’t hurt the mullahs in Iran or Pakistan. In a similar vein, Obama has advocated the creation of international efforts to tackle such difficult problems as climate change and nuclear proliferation, lending important and long overdue American leadership to those important causes.

The path to peace begins with pursuing it honestly, diligently, and with mutual respect for our myriad partners, and I think that’s the message behind this honor.

By Tim Redmond

It's as if the San Francisco Chronicle didn't recognize that there are real issues facing California -- and that the governor is acting like a thug, threatening the future of the state and clowning around like it doesn't matter.

Check this out: The Chron's editorial page criticizes Tom Ammiano for standing up to the governor:

But Assemblyman Tom Ammiano crossed the line when he shouted "You lie!" at Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger during a Democratic fundraiser in San Francisco on Wednesday night. Ammiano reportedly went even further on the crass-o-meter when he suggested that the governor could kiss his posterior.

(By the way, this is San Francisco -- it's okay for the daily newspaper to say "ass.")

And then suggests that this was just a nice event at which

The governor was invited for a brief visit to a Democratic Party event by former Mayor Willie Brown

without ever saying that Brown had no business bringing the governor -- who is so openly threatening the Democrats with mass bill vetoes that Sen. Mark Leno is forced to ask "are we dealing with the Mob or the governor of California?" -- to a Democratic party fundraiser.

Brown was playing his normal games, goofing around and ignoring the life-and-death issues at stake. He and Arnold are buds, and Brown backed Schwarzenegger for governor over a Democrat. He knew bringing the guy into that room would create a furor, and he knew that the governor would love it (it helps him with his conservative base to get booed by San Francisco Democrats.)

Ammiano knows all that, too, and frankly, was somewhat reserved in his comments. I would have gone further; I would have called out Willie Brown for a back-stabbing political stunt.

And don't the Chron editorial writers have any sense of humor? "You lie" was a joke, guys, a parody. Please: Lighten up, and get a clue.

By Rebecca Bowe

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced yesterday that he wouldn’t sign any new legislation unless a water plan is in place -- and he has some very concrete ideas about what that plan should be. There are about 700 bills awaiting his signature by Sunday.

Siding with Republicans and Central Valley farmers on the water issue, Schwarzenegger has said he would veto any water package that does not include bonds for new dams and reservoirs, at a cost of an estimated $12 billion.

Major agricultural interests are hopeful that these projects will improve their access to water for irrigation, but environmentalists fear that investing in them would take the state down the wrong path when it comes to protecting environmental resources and encouraging more efficient water use. So far, an agreement hasn't been reached.

As the deadline creeps closer, money is becoming a key concern, especially in the wake of dramatic budget cuts to education and social services. Environmentalists are worried that protections for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta will be abandoned in favor of the major water-storage projects forcefully championed by Central Valley farmers who say they’re in dire straits due to unreliable water supply. Sen. Mark Leno told the Guardian this afternoon that as discussions go on, funding for stronger Delta protections is being eyed as a way to bring down the total cost of the water package.

Signaling a reversal from what lawmakers characterized as the “coequal goals” of water reliability and environmental protection at the beginning of the process, Leno says Delta ecosystem protections are now being characterized as “environmental pork” that should have a lower funding priority.

“Republicans are squawking [about the cost], but they won’t let there be any impact on dams, so all the money is coming out of protections for the Delta,” Leno said.

Story and photos by Sarah Morrison

It seemed only fitting that San Francisco’s first ever public eulogy to honor the thousands of people who die around the world from poverty-related causes took place yesterday at the UN Plaza – a link that almost all the speakers paid tribute to.

While religious leaders, educators and volunteers came together last night to honor individuals who have lost their lives to poverty, they also told the crowd that action must be taken to ensure that the United Nations Millennium Development Goals – which strive to end poverty and hunger – are embraced by all.

“For decades, the UN has tried to help people all over the world with the limited resources it has,” said Imam Suleiman Ghali from the Islamic Society of San Francisco as he began addressing the audience. “This gathering is to bring us together, to tell people what is going on in the world, and to say that it is something we no longer can accept.”

By Tim Redmond

Yes, that sound overhead is the annual display of America's military might, the Blue Angels. And as always, I ask myself: Is this a good idea in a big city?

By Ryan Thomas Riddle

A decision is expected next month in the high-stakes battle
between the Archdiocese of San Francisco and Assessor-Record Phil Ting, which will determine whether the church will pay out millions in transfer taxes.

On Thursday, Oct. 8, Ting once again went before the Transfer Tax Review Board to counter the Archdiocese’s
assertions that its extensive 2008 property transfers aren’t taxable. The board then called for final legal documentation in the case, including closing briefs, to be delivered by both sides on Nov. 9. The board will render its final ruling two weeks later, according to Ting.

“It is in the capable hands of the tax review board,” he told the Guardian.

Ting said he expects that the verdict will be in his office’s favor, which could force the Catholic Church to pay somewhere between $3 million and $15 million in transfer taxes to the city. Church officials, who have yet to respond to our calls, contend that the properties the archdiocese moved from one interdenominational entity to another are considered a “gift” under canon law, and thus do not qualify for transfer taxation since the properties still belong to the greater Catholic Church.

The Assessor’s Office reviewed a January 2009 California Supreme Court ruling that reaffirmed the national Episcopal Church’s ownership of local church buildings and properties, a case the archdiocese has cited. “Basically, it’s an interdenominational conflict that has no barring on this case,” Ting said.

As for accusations from the more militant church supporters that this is the city’s retaliation for the passing of Proposition 8
, Ting said that his office made overtures on the transfer taxes long before the same-sex marriage issue went to the election ballot. Craig Dziedzic, manager of the recording division within the Assessor’s Office who testified in Thursday’s hearing, sent emails out to the legal counsel for the diocese regarding the transfer taxes back in April 2008, months before Prop 8 was passed.

By John Ross

MEXICO CITY -- An unprecedented wave of anarchist bombings here and in provincial capitals has Mexican security forces on red alert.

Beginning September 1st, bombs have gone off once or twice a week regularly as clockwork, taking out windows and ATMs at five banks, and torching two auto showrooms and several U.S. fast-food franchises and an upscale boutique in the chic Polanco district of this conflictive capital. In each case, the Anarchist "A" has been spray-painted on nearby walls along with slogans supporting animal liberation demands to stop prison construction, and calls for the demise of capitalism.

The serial bombings are the first to strike Mexico City since November 2006, when radicals took out a chunk of the nation's highest electoral tribunal, blew up a foreign-owned bank, and scorched an auditorium in the scrupulously-guarded compound of the once and future ruling PRI party. The 2006 attacks came in the wake of a fraud-marred presidential election and federal police suppression of a popular uprising in the southern state of Oaxaca and were claimed by five armed groups, most prominently the Democratic Revolutionary Tendency, a split-off from the Marxist-Leninist Popular Revolutionary Army (EPR) which itself bombed a Sears outlet in Oaxaca City in 2006 and PEMEX pipelines in central Mexico in 2007.

Anarchist cells that claim to have perpetrated the recent explosions take pains to distance themselves from the Marxist bombers.

In vindicating a September 25th blast at a Banamex branch in the rural Milpa Alta delegation (borough) of Mexico City during which the rebels claim a half million pesos were immolated, "The Subversive Alliance For The Liberation Of The Earth, The Animals, & The Humans" (in that order) charged that the U.S.-owned bank promoted "torture, destruction, and slavery. "Our motives are to stop these bastards and let them know that we are not playing games."

By Tim Redmond

The Guardian of London just received a stunning gag order forbidding the paper from reporting on a Parliamentary debate.

Check this out:

Today's published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

Whoa. The thing is, with today's social networking and fast-moving media, I suspect somebody's going to leak and post the info pretty quickly anyway. And I don't think the UK authorities can prevent web sites in other countries from publishing it.

The outcome will be interesting not just for UK media law, but for the (lack of) success of gag orders in general. At least, I hope so.

By Tim Redmond

One of the many wonderful things about the modern world of media is that government and legal gag orders really don't work anymore.

The Guardian of London faced a stunning order this week not to publish information on a question asked in Parliament. But the minute the paper announced it had been gagged, the social media networks and the bloggers came alive with the story, and before long, the question that the Guardian couldn't report on was published in its entirely (among other places, in the comments on my previous blog item on this).

Turns out this was all about a London law firm, Carter Ruck, trying to block publication of information about alleged toxic waste dumping in Ivory Coast. (You can read the report that started all the fuss here.)

Here's the result,. according to the Guardian:

The result of Carter-Ruck's intransigence was an avalanche of online publication, as well as the reproduction of Farrelly's parliamentary questions in the magazine Private Eye, which hit the London streets at lunchtime today. Bloggers who posted Farrelly's questions in full included the political website Guido Fawkes and the Spectator magazine website.

Large numbers of messages were posted on Twitter, to the extent that "Trafigura" and "Carter-Ruck" became the most viewed keywords in London throughout the morning.

So now the whole thing is a major public issue, probably bringing more negative publicity for Carter Ruck and Trafigura than would ever have happened if the firm had never sought the gag order. Go team.

By Steven T. Jones

The San Francisco Chronicle has a solid lead story today about how Mayor Gavin Newsom seems to be violating Prop. H, a campaign finance reform measure that he wrote and promoted last year. Reporter Heather Knight unearthed compelling evidence, but then unfortunately bought the bullshit excuses from Newsom’s notoriously unethical treasurer Jim Sutton and concluded the contributions “don’t appear to violate the letter of Proposition H.”

I suspect it was Knight’s editors who made her pull the punch because some of the donations seem squarely banned by Prop. H – with Newsom essentially giving away public funds to entities that then gave to his gubernatorial campaign (not to mention giving his wife an acting job). What do you think?

Meanwhile, the ironically named “I Love You Gavin Newsom” has an interesting post today on a similar topic, questioning whether Newsom is getting unreported in-kind political contributions from Twitter. The story isn’t well-sourced, but it does raise an interesting question and is worth a read.

By Tim Redmond

Mayor Gavin Newsom doesn't have enough money to do a major statewide TV buy, but he's making his early pitch, and trying to define the race, with a new internet ad. Calitics points out that the ad

mentions not once, but twice, both the Constitutional Convention and eliminating the 2/3rds rule. Newsom is positioning himself as the candidate of not just "change" but of structural reform:

Of course, those of us who live in San Francisco know that Newsom has done nothing -- nothing -- in terms of real structural reform in the city, and has pused a Schwarzenegger-style no-new-taxes budget. He was at first very wary about Constitutional change, but now is embracing it, sensing, no doubt, that the mood of the public is so down on Sacramento and Sacto politiciians that the concept of fundamental change is attractive -- even when peddled by someone who has no credentials as a "change" candidate.

But for Jerry Brown, this is serious stuff -- the candidate who defines the race first is often in a much better position to make the case for his or her election. And Newsom is trying to define the race as insider-outsider, change v. politics as usual. Brown may have the poll numbers and the money, but if he sits around and lets Newsom define the race, he's playing a dangerous game.

By Tim Redmond

Thanks, MissionMission for alerting us to the abominable project proposed for 17th and Mission. Ick. Talk about out of place.

By Steven T. Jones

A just-released San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency study has recommend extending parking meter hours to Sundays and nights as a means of raising $8.8 million in annual revenue, increasing parking availability, and reducing traffic congestion and illegal parking – setting up a potential clash with Mayor Gavin Newsom, who opposes the idea and who appointed the MTA board members who will make the decision.

The detailed SFMTA study, launched in May as part of a budget compromise, took a neighborhood-by-neighborhood approach to its analysis, recommending varying hours and conditions to try to achieve the 85 percent occupancy rate it considers ideal. For example, 59 percent of metered spaces would have hours extended to 9 pm Monday through Thursday and until midnight Friday and Saturday, while 23 percent of spaces would remain at 6 pm on weekdays and 9 pm on weekends. And at 17 percent of meters with the lowest parking availability, drivers would need to plug meters until midnight everyday except Sunday, when metering hours would end at 6 p.m. citywide.

“This proposal for extended meter hours fits into a larger vision of the SFMTA’s overall transportation and parking policy goals and furthers San Francisco’s Transit First policy,” Nathaniel P. Ford Sr., executive director of the SFMTA, said today in a prepared statement. “Parking meters create parking availability and they support economic vitality by helping business customers find parking when they need it.”

By Melanie Ruiz

California's government is broken, unable to deal with this state’s many challenges, and it’s time for fundamental reform. That call was sounded in the summer of 2008 by Jim Wunderman, president and CEO of the Bay Area Council (BAC), and it was heeded by disparate allies who formed a movement that is pushing for a constitutional convention.

Tomorrow, Oct. 14, representatives from the BAC, Courage Campaign, California Forward and Political Reform Program at the New America Foundation will explain why a convention is necessary to get California out of crisis and gridlock and into prosperity. San Francisco Young Democrats (SFYD) and Citizen Hope (the grassroots political group that formed about Barack Obama successful presidential campaign) are sponsoring the panel discussion starting at 7 pm at the California State Building Auditorium, 455 Golden Gate Ave. The event is free.

One of the biggest impediments to good government is the hefty two-thirds vote requirement for passing budgets and raising taxes. Though supporters of this initiative often have opposing views on controversial issues like taxes, they all agree that one of the oldest state constitutions needs an overhaul.

For the Nov. 3 election are here. We've also endorsed John Garamendi for Congress in District 10. Fell free to comment if you disagree with us ....

By Just A Guy

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

Something I’ve neglected to talk about at length since my blog began back in April is addiction in prison.

Obviously, a very large percentage of us in prison are here for things that ultimately were related to drugs. From possession to robbery to murder, in one way shape or form, 90 percent of us committed our crimes while on drugs or alcohol, while trying to get drugs or alcohol, or pursing the “rewards” of selling drugs and hurting people in that pursuit.

I’ve blogged about cell phones, specifically twice, and have touched on that subject numerous times, but I’ve not really dug into the drug problem.

I guess to some degree I was caught up in the heart of the “cell phone wars” from an inmates point of view, but the cell phone dilemma has done an excellent job of overshadowing what I perceive to be a much bigger threat to public safety -- drug and alcohol addiction in prison.

In my defense, it’s easy to get caught up in the cell phone question because the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s rationale is ludicrous in light of the problems caused by addiction and drugs in prison. It’s almost as if they’re using cell phones to take our attention away from the real problem.

First of all, drugs in prison are quite plentiful and easy to get, and cause a whole host of problems, from gang trouble to debt trouble to race trouble -- not to mention the spread of disease. (I had never seen heroin until I went to prison.)

By Steven T. Jones

Proposition D – which would overturn the voter-approved billboard ban on Market Street between 5th and 7th streets as a means of raising money to rehabilitate the neighborhood – has divided the progressive community, a division that is also playing out in the District 6 supervisorial race to replace Sup. Chris Daly (who is neutral on the measure).

The two leading progressive candidates in the race, Debra Walker and Jim Meko, differ on the measure. Walker, an artist who serves on the Building Inspection Commission, supports the measure and has actively campaigned for its passage. Meko, who serves of the Western SoMa Citizens Planning Task Force, opposes the measure.

“Billboards aren’t a cure for blight. They are blight,” Meko said, noting that his opposition stems from property owner David Addington’s placement of the flawed measure on the ballot without a proper vetting process: “The special use sign district might be a good thing, but I’m offended at the lack of process.”

Walker said she shares some of the concerns about process and the flaws in the measure – such as the unchecked fiscal authority given to the self-appointed Mid-Market Community Benefits District board – but she thinks they’re easily mitigated by the Board of Supervisors and the measure brings needed revenue to the area: “At some point, you’ve got to try it and see what happens.”

By Tim Redmond

Randy Shaw has a piece in Beyond Chron today that takes issue with our endorsement on Prop. D.

It’s a fair discussion and a reasonable debate -- I understand why some progressives support Prop. D, and I don’t think they’re wrong or evil for doing so. This one’s a tough call -- I’m willing to accept stuff like electronic billboards that I don’t want to see in most parts of the city if it will really bring new life mid-Market, which desperately needs investment and energy.

But Shaw’s piece brings up a larger issue, one that’s part of the topic of our anniversary issue next week, so it’s worth comment.

Here’s what he wrote:

The San Francisco Bay Guardian said many good things about Prop D, but urged a No vote after focusing on the CBD factor: “But the process this measure describes isn't at all democratic. The CBD board selects its own members, and the only oversight the city has is the ability of the Board of Supervisors to abolish the agency.”

Of course, any funding allocation process used by Prop D could have been similarly attacked. Would the Guardian prefer that the Mayor’s Office allocate Prop D funds? If so, its editorial board should reread my pieces on the Newsom Administration’s rigged RFP/RFQ processes.

Hard to argue with that, on the surface: Yes, the bidding process out of the Mayor’s Office is fucked up. Yes, there is almost always some level of corruption at City Hall (any City Hall).

But that doesn’t mean that the private sector ought to take over thing like zoning and resource allocation.

Private nonprofits like the Central Market Community Benefits District play a role in the city’s life, and that’s fine. Some nonprofits (like the one Randy Shaw runs) get city contracts to do work the city can’t do very well, and that’s also fine.

But the public sector -- however flawed, however corrupt at times -- still has to have the final say over regulations and the way money gets spent on public services. That’s how democracy works.

I remember once when we were intervieweing a very appealing, smart and generally progressive candidate for city assessor a few years back, and we asked him how he would go about bringing in more revenue. He told us he wasn’t sure that was a good idea, because “Willie Brown and his friends will just waste it.”

True -- Brown and his friends wasted a lot of money. And that kind of corruption in government has helped the right wing push its anti-public-sector agenda. And people who says that “at least Willie Brown made the trains run on time” miss the point - corruption undermines faith in government.

But overall, using that argument to push for privatization of public resources is a dangerous way to go.

Remember: The money that would be paid by billboard owners to the CBD amounts to a tax on the new billboards. That tax ought to be collected by the city, and elected city officials should decide how it's spent. Proponents of the measure told us they didn't want to let the supervisors hold hearings, write the legislation or put it on the ballot because the city would then have control over the final shape of the measure. For example, Sup. Chris Daly wanted much of the billboard money to go for low-income housing -- which isn't where the CBD folks wanted it to go.

Sorry, but that's a decision for elected officials to make. I'll support new billboards when I know that there will be a public process (and public-sector process) determining how the boards are sited, how they're taxed and where the extra cash is spent.

By Just A Guy

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

Shame on Ian Frazier and the New Yorker.

Frazier is a writer for that bastion of liberal magazines, and he published an article (puff piece) about cell-phone sniffing dogs in the New Jersey correctional system.

No, it’s not really a puff piece -- “puff pieces” generally don’t have a deleterious affect on people or segments of society, as Frazier’s piece does on inmates throughout the country.

The piece does a great job of allowing New Jersey corrections officials to laud their own efforts to overthrow that most evil beast, the cell phone in prison. The piece goes on to report about New Jersey corrections training its own dogs on how to sniff out cell phones, and the wonderful results of that training, which is the seizure of more than 130 cell phones from us dastardly, evil inmates.

New Jersey corrections ballyhoos itself quite well about how much the agency is saving over states like California, which has contracted cell phone sniffers to come in at exorbitant rates, depleting our already woefully depleted budget. At least the New Jersey corrections folks got something right.

The corrections agency goes on to say how dangerous and threatening all us inmates are with cell phones, how it’s pretty much only gang members and drug dealers who purchase the phones and call out hits on unsuspecting witnesses and victims.

By John Ross

MEXICO CITY -- During the first week of October, the increasingly unpopular government of Felipe Calderon stepped up its ongoing war of words against the Mexican Electricity Workers Union (SME), one of the nation's oldest labor organizations founded at the apogee of the landmark Mexican Revolution in 1914 when workers repeatedly shut down the Canadian-owned Mexican Light & Power Company. Now, with the centennial of the Revolution on deck in 2010, the SME's survival as a union is in jeopardy and it may never make it to the birthday party.

Following the nationalization of electricity generation and distribution under President Adolfo Lopez Mateos in 1960, the SME ("Esmay") won collective bargaining agreements for the newly created Luz y Fuerza Del Centro that distributes about a fifth of the nation's energy to Mexico City and four surrounding states. Mexico's second power utility, the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) services the rest of the country and its workers are represented by a "charro" (company) union under the thumb of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) that ran the lives of Mexicans from the cradle to the grave for 71 years until it was displaced from power by Calderon's rightist PAN in 2000.

Although the SME had longstanding ties to the PRI, it maintained a modicum of critical independence. Communists and Trotskyists wielded influence in union circles and decorated the walls of the union headquarters with proletarian murals. The Sindicato Mexicano de Electricistas has always been good for 40,000 boots on the ground when it comes to social protest. After the 1985 Mexico City earthquake that took up to 30,000 lives, SME workers rescued victims trapped in the rubble of fallen buildings and worked tirelessly around the clock to restore power in working class colonies. In contrast, the PRI-run government abandoned "los de abajo" ("those down below") to their own fate.

Three years ago, after hotly contested presidential elections, the SME cautiously lined up with Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) after Calderon was awarded victory over the leftist leader in fraud-marred balloting. Calderon has never forgiven the union's 66,000 members - 44,000 active workers and 22,000 pensioners - for this partisan sin.

October 18 is Alaska Day, something I discovered while working on a piece about right wing nuts—which led me to wonder what people in the home state of one of the nuttiest right wing nuts think of their nut.

Yes, I know most folks on the left feel like they never want to hear from Sarah "moose-in-the headlights" Palin again, but that could be a mistake, according to a blog called The Mudflats: Tiptoeing Through the Muck of Alaskan Politics, which is home to this piece about Palin’s waning popularity, full of cool charts with arrows pointing (sigh of relief) mostly downwards.

As Mudflats notes, "69 percent of 20 percent may be good enough to sell books, but good enough to get her elected to the highest office in the land? Not so much. Really, it should be every Democrat’s dream to see a Palin 2012 run for the White House. It would not only be enough to secure Obama a second term, but it might actually cause the complete destruction of the Republican Party.

Then, Eisenhower can quit rolling over in his grave."

All of which is worth remembering when it's raining outside and the healthcare debate is droning on and it feels like the Dems got stuck in a rut, with Palin kicking mud in their faces with the wheels of her Chevy Suburban. But while I admire Mudflats' humor, I'm not sure I'm willing to go so far as to stick this bumper sticker on my beat-up black Anonomobile:

by Rebecca Bowe

Politico has reported that the Yes Men, a left-leaning activist group that has created public-relations messes for big business before, fooled Reuters, CNBC, and the Washington Post this morning by issuing a fake press release from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce declaring that it had withdrawn its opposition to the climate-change bill.

This is from the fake press release:

"We believe that strong climate legislation is the best way to ensure American innovation, create jobs, and make sure the U.S. and the world are on track to reduce global carbon emissions, and to provide for the needs of the American business community for generations to come," said the spokesman, Hingo Sembra.

“The new position is an about-face on climate policy for the Chamber, which previously lobbied against government action. The shift comes after the defection of several prominent members of the Chamber, including PG&E, Apple, PNM Resources, and Exelon.

Here’s the reaction from a Chamber of Commerce spokesman (as reported by Fox News) after the COC figured out they'd gotten punked:

"Public relations hoaxes undermine the genuine effort to find solutions on the challenge of climate change," spokesman Thomas Collamore said. "These irresponsible tactics are a foolish distraction from the serious effort by our nation to reduce greenhouse gases."

The Yes Men are self-styled pranksters, their media stunts are immediately recognized for being the bold political statements that they are, and they serve to amplify public pressure on crucial issues such as human rights or global warming. Although the Yes Men may have temporarily posed as Chamber of Commerce press contacts, it's worth noting that there’s a huge difference between that media stunt and the AstroTurf hoax that PR firm Bonner & Associates evidently thought it could get away with this past summer.

The PR firm, which was tapped by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy (ACCCE), sent forged letters opposing the climate bill purporting to be from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and other minority groups. Bonner & Associates is now under Congressional investigation for the fake letters.

A popular term for this PR tactic is AstroTurfing: Creating the illusion of a grassroots campaign driven by ordinary people when in fact the campaign is a targeted attack powered by millions of dollars to advance a business agenda. And according to an article in the National Journal, AstroTurfing is on the rise.

According to a quote from a Congressional aide that appeared in that story:

"I think what we've seen, especially this summer with the energy and health care debates, is that AstroTurf has become much more widespread than I think we've ever seen it before … The American public is honestly confused about what is real and what is not."

So while the Yes Men's "foolish distraction" may have been successful in focusing attention on how big business is trying to block efforts to address climate change, don't forget that they aren't the only ones pulling a fast one -- and the tricksters on the business side are trying to avoid the attention of the media, rather than attract it. By the way, there’s a movie coming out soon called The Yes Men Fix the World. It opens Oct. 30 in the Bay Area.

By Steven T. Jones

In a couple hours, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Board of Directors will consider a controversial proposal to extend parking meter hours to evenings and Sundays, but it’s still unclear whether that body is inclined to take any action.

Alternative transportation and urban planning activists are excited about the chance to weigh in on a proposal that would raise nearly $9 million per year and begin to balance out the fare hikes and service cuts that Muni riders absorbed this year, while some motorists and business owners are likely to express their opposition.

Mayor Gavin Newsom has been expressing opposition to the item through the San Francisco Chronicle, but an item buried in yesterday’s Matier & Ross column seems to indicate that he’s backing off a bit, although they don’t seem to understand that this is a decision for the MTA board, not the Board of Supervisors.

As I’ve written before, this proposal will be a big test of whether the MTA board, whose seven members are all appointed by Newsom, is actually the independent agency capable of making tough decisions without regard to political consequences that the intent of 2007’s Proposition A, which gave them full authority over parking and public transit in San Francisco.

The meeting starts at 2 p.m. in City Hall’s Room 400, and the parking meter proposal follows a discussion of the agency’s deficit-plagued budget, appropriately enough.

P.S. Streetsblog SF has an excellent discussion of the proposal with parking guru Donald Shoup, who makes it clear why this study is so different for the meter rates increases in Oakland that caused such controversy.

Text and images by Sarah Phelan

Civil rights groups celebrated today, as the Board of Supervisors amended the city’s sanctuary policy to ensure that immigrant youth get their day in court before being handed over to the feds for deportation.

Under the new policy, which Sup. David Campos, Eric Mar, Ross Mirkarimi, Sophie Maxwell, Chris Daly, John Avalos, Bevan Dufty and Board President David Chiu co-sponsored, juveniles won’t be handed over to federal immigration authorities unless they are found guilty of a felony.

That marks a shift from the draconian olicy that Newsom ordered last year, the day after he announced his gubernatorial run. Under that policy, kids were referred to the feds at booking, meaning US citizens and immigrants who hadn't committed a felony could be wrongly deported.

A huge crowd, including immigrants, civil rights experts, teachers and local high school kids, cheered when Board President Chiu announced that the Campos amendment (so-called because Sup. David Campos spearheaded the effort to move this legislation) passed on its first reading

“This is really for our youth, for our kids, because they deserve nothing more, nothing less, than just full equality when it comes to how the law treats them,” Campos said after the vote.

"The fact that you're undocumented doesn't mean you're not a person under the United States Constitution,,” he said. “ If we can't stand up for the Constitution in San Francisco, then where can we stand up for it in this country?"

Campos worked for over a year to fashion today's amendment, working with civil rights experts and immigration lawyers to come up with a proposal that City Attorney Dennis Herrera has deemed legally tenable.

Mayor Gavin Newsom’s office vowed today to ensure that probation officers aren't forced to break federal law in order to abide by the Campos legislation.

But Campos said the city’s CEO can't pick and choose which city laws to follow.
"We expect the mayor's office to follow the laws of the city and county of San Francisco - that's his job," Campos said. . "If he refuses to do that, the board will have to figure out what our options are."

Meanwhile, Juvenile Probation Chief William Siffermann said he can’t prohibit officials from reporting instances where there's a reasonable belief that civil immigration laws have been violated.

By John Ross

MEXICO CITY -- Monday morning, Oct. 12, broke broodingly over Mexico City. The headlines on a score of newspapers hanging from Vicente Ramirez's kiosk were universal loas for Calderon's heroic seizure of Luz y Fuerza del Centro. As usual, La Jornada, the capital's left daily, was the exception. Political columnist Julio Hernandez noted that on the eve of the centennial of the Revolution of 1910-1919, Mexico stood at a decisive moment: if Calderon was allowed to validate the takeover of the company and destroy the SME, the left's goose was cooked.

Around the counter at the Café La Blanca, sullen faces were buried in their newspapers. Isidro Zuniga talked about putting 34 years in at a box factory before being shown the door - "I gave them my youth for a handful of pinche lentils. This is how the bosses fuck us. Chinga su Madre Senor President! We will stand with the SME…"

Benito Ruiz, the driver at the hotel where I've lived for 25 years, was steaming. Calderon was like the dictator Porfirio Diaz who was dumped by the Revolution, like the president Gustavo Diaz Ordaz who had ordered the massacre of hundreds of students on the eve of the Olympics in 1968. "Watch your back, Senor John," he warned, "these bastards will stop at nothing…"

Others had less sympathy for the workers. Don Juanito Lopez, a tailor here in the old quarter, was dismissive of Luz y Fuerza which he thought rotten to the core with corruption. When you complained about your light bill or wanted to get something fixed, employees demanded a "stimulus" bribe. Sky-high electric bills have driven a wedge between Luz y Fuerza workers and the general public.

I walked over to the neighborhood Luz y Fuerza office on Carranza Street. It was locked up tight but the Mexican flag was still flapping from the roof. Handwritten signs ("Listen up people! The SME is fighting for you!") were taped to the dusty windows. A young woman who said she was the daughter of an electricista, handed me a leaflet that explained what Calderon had done "is called fascism just like under Hitler and Mussolini and Pinochet and Diaz Ordaz."

By Steven T. Jones

My cover story on bicycling in May provoked strong reactions, both positive and negative. I called out motorists for their oversized sense of entitlement to such a damaging and heavily subsidized transportation choice, and was called out for being self-righteous and admitting to routinely breaking traffic laws.

I never apologized for my position and I intend to push it even further tonight at CounterPULSE when I’ll be on a panel talking about bicycling politics in San Francisco, along with author/activist Chris Carlsson, transportation planner Janel Sterbentz, and San Francisco Bicycle Coalition program director Andy Thornley. The free event starts at 7:30 pm, is co-sponsored by City Lights Foundation, and goes down at 1310 Mission Street at 9th.

So, all you haters out there (and hopefully a few lovers as well), you know where to find me. Bring it on.

By Steven T. Jones

The politics of parking in San Francisco has always been intensively visceral, particularly among those who assert a right to park their cars on public property at little or no cost (and who often have a hard time finding a spot). So yesterday’s San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency hearing on its proposal to extend parking meter hours was bound to get heated.

MTA chief Nat Ford anticipated the high emotions to come when he said in his introductory remarks, “It’s not easy to find parking in San Francisco, and it’s not easy to talk about parking in San Francisco…We know this study is creating a lot of discussion and feedback from elected officials and the general public.”

And just as predicted, representatives from the business community, landlords, westside residents, and other conservative interests decried the parking proposal as an unfair tax on motorists and an unnecessary intrusion of government do-gooders.

But the real surprise of the hearing was the angry opposition from a handful of leftists – self-described socialists, poor students, and other young members of the anti-war ANSWER Coalition – who blasted the proposal as a tax on working class motorists and called for the city to tax the rich and big corporations instead.

Text and images by Sarah Phelan

Sups. David Campos, Ross Mirkarimi and Bevan Dufty shortly after they joined Board President David Chiu and Sups. John Avalos, Eric Mar, Sophie Maxwell and Chris Daly in amending the city's sanctuary policy. Dufty has said that Mayor Newsom threatened not to endorse Dufty's bid for mayor, if he supported the amendment.

Yesterday’s celebration of the Board’s veto-proof amendment of the sanctuary ordinance felt similar to the joy that surrounded the city's decision to start marrying same-sex couples. Only this time, instead of leading the civil rights charge, Mayor Gavin Newsom appears to be opposing it, citing fears that the city could be sued.

Following the supervisors’ vote, supporters of the Campos amendment poured out of the Board Chambers, chanting “Yes we can,” in Spanish and English, and into the second-floor rotunda, joined by Sup. David Campos.

Campos and immigration attorney Francisco Ugarte celebrate the Board's historic Oct. 20 vote.

But even as Campos talked to the crowd about the importance of fighting for civil rights and against the slippery slope of a two-tiered system of justice, mayoral spokesperson Nathan Ballard appeared to be belittling the work of Campos and numerous civil and immigration rights experts, while vowing to ignore the Board's amendment.

“The Campos bill isn’t worth the paper it’s written on—it’s unenforceable and he knows that,” Ballard told the Chron.
‘We are not going to put our law enforcement officers in legal jeopardy just because the Board of Supervisors wants to make a statement."

Ana Perez the director of CARECEN SF, shares her thoughts on the Board's vote with the media.

But can Newsom selectively ignore laws that have been passed by a veto-proof majority of the Board, and have been vetted as being legally tenable by the City Attorney?

“I don’t know," Campos told the Guardian. " I’m still trying to figure out whether the mayor can do that. We’re going into uncharted legal territory.”

A crowd of supporters, including civil rights experts, immigration attorneys and community leaders, gathered in the rotunda to celebrate, even as the Mayor's Office announced it intends to ignore the Board's sanctuary amendment.

By Tim Redmond

I was arrested once for “Conspiracy to Loiter.”

Think about that, for a second. Try to figure out what that exact crime entails. Then consider that it took place in the Federal Building in San Francisco, and under federal law, conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor can be charged as a felony. So my crime, as it were, could have landed me in a federal pen, serving five years hard time.

I was actually just a reporter, wearing an press pass issued by the SFPD, covering a demonstration that involved some activists chaining themselves to the front door of the Federal Building. Most of the reporters were outside, trying to do interviews as the cops blocked off access to the protesters. So I walked around to the side door, walked into the (public) building and started doing interviews as the chain gang was broken up and taken into custody.

An infuriated member of the Federal Protective Service pointed to me and told his assistant to “arrest that man.” When the younger cop asked what the charge would be, the red-faced officer blurted out “uh, conspiracy to loiter.”

So that’s what went down on the paperwork, and as a suspected felon, I was chained to a radiator in the FPS office while they figured out what to do with me next. It took an hour or two for some U.S. attorney to get involved and realize that there was no such crime as conspiracy to loiter, and if there was I hadn’t committed it, and eventually I was unchained and released. I still had to get a lawyer to get the charge formally dismissed.

All these years later, it’s just a funny story -- but if I had been a young person with brown skin who had arrived in the United States with his parents at age two and never attained proper legal status, I could have been deported, to a country I’d never known where I had no ties or connections and might not even speak the language.

That’s one of the problems with deporting people just on the basis of an arrest -- sometimes people get arrested by mistake. Sometimes they turn out to be not guilty.

That’s why the Examiner’s front page headline -- “Commit a crime, stay in The City” -- is so crazy. You don’t have to commit a crime to get arrested. Any young man with black or brown skin in this country knows that.

There’s a reason why people have the right to a preliminary hearing and a trial before they have to pay for a crime. Maybe they didn’t do it.

All that David Campos’ legislation does is move the time when you refer someone for potential deportation (which, frankly, is worse punishment than most of the sentences most people will get for the crimes in question) from the arrest period to the conviction period.

It’s pretty simple, really. And I remain convinced that the only reason Mayor Newsom opposes it is that he’s running for governor and doesn’t want to look soft on crime.

By Rebecca Bowe

On Sept. 15, 500 certified nursing assistants (CNAs) and clerical workers with San Francisco’s Department of Public Health received pink slips informing them that they would be declassified out of their current jobs, and rehired at lower-paying positions.

The difference in terms of job responsibilities is slight, but money-wise, the downgrades represent a $15,000 annual pay cut on average for CNAs, and a $5,000 annual pay cut on average for clerical workers. Many of the people affected by the cuts are single moms who make less than $40,000 per year, so the income loss is significant.

At yesterday’s Board of Supervisors meeting, Sups. John Avalos and Chris Daly each pitched ideas that could bump those public health workers’ salaries back up. Avalos’ proposal would bolster the front-line workers’ salaries by skimming some excess from higher-ranking city jobs.

“Before cutting vital city services, if the city is going to reduce the wages of city workers, we should first look to those who have the most, not those who have the least,” Avalos said.

“Last year, a Controller’s report revealed that the city has become increasingly management-heavy, and revealed that over the last few years, MEA [Municipal Executive's Association] has grown from around 700 positions to nearly 1,100 positions. After some scrutiny, it became clear that most of those new positions were actually mid-managers being promoted up from Local 21 to MEA positions. Many of these mid-managers received substantial wage increases, ranging from as much as $20,000 to $40,000 annually. In short, they were reclassified up.”

He then announced his request to the city controller to draft an annual salary ordinance, which would reclassify top management positions to free up enough funding to stop the demotions and wage reductions for the lower-paid Department of Public Health employees.

By Tim Redmond

Gavin Newsom is strongly denying the “swirling rumors” that he might drop out of the race for governor and settle for second fiddle. He kind of has to do that if he wants to keep raising money -- although all these reports, some of which come from his own shop, aren’t going to help him. And the more vocally he insists he will never drop out of the governor’s race, the more embarrassing it will be if he gets to the point where he has no choice. I don’t think he’ll stay in the race to the bitter end if the polls and the money show him getting clobbered; nothing worse for a political career than a 20-point loss in a primary.

I agree that the polls at this point are pretty meaningless -- it’s mostly about name ID and the few issues Newsom is known for, like same-sex marriage (which plays badly with older voters, who are the ones most likely to be contacted by pollsters. Newsom’s voters all use cell phones.) What’s more significant is that our mayor is having trouble raising money -- and sadly, in California, it take tens of millions to reach voters who might not know much about you (and need to change their opinions pretty radically).

So I can understand why some Newsom allies think he should just cut a deal with Jerry Brown and run for lieutenant gov. It makes a certain amount of political sense: Newsom is young, and the Lt. job is perfect for him -- it’s all about holding press conferences and cutting ribbons. Four years of that, plenty of time to make statewide connections, build a donor base and create the image he wants, and he’ll be ready to go for the top job -- which might very well be open. Brown is 71; by the time he’d be up for re-election he’d be 76, and looking at serving in one of the toughest jobs in American into his 80s. One term might be all he’s up for.

And besides, not to be ghoulish or anything, but whenever you take the Number Two spot behind a septuagenarian office holder, the possibility that you’ll wind up Number One is always on your mind. Brown is pretty damn healthy; all that meditation and stuff is good for you. But you never know.

The problem is that someone else will want the LT job, and if he waits too long, it looks like he’s taking the consolation prize and doesn’t really care about it, and all these quotes will come back to haunt him. Imagine how much it would suck to agree to be the understudy -- and then get beat for that job.

Okay, I've got a lot of problems with Jerry Brown. He was an awful mayor of Oakland, sided with the developers and the cops, and seemed to lose almost all of his progressive insticts. He's against raising taxes on the rich. He won't even support marijuana decriminalization.

There are good reasons to criticize the guy, and I'm right there at the front of the line.

But I fear that's not what the press is going to do over the next year. It's way too much fun to dredge up the old Gov. Moonbeam shit

Check out Carla Marinucci today:

now's a good time to re-introduce you to author Jerry Brown, whose '90s book "Dialogues" also contains a few memorable quotes that may end up in some 2010 gubernatorial campaign ads .... For Brown fans, the material illustrates the intellectual curiousity and independence that they say set him apart in the current pack of pols. For conservatives, it's more proof he's still that ultra-liberal, wacky "Moonbeam'' character.

(btw, ultra-liberal is the Chron's disparaging term for progressive. Although C.W. Nevius seems to like "militantly liberal.")

So here are some of the examples of questions Brown asked in his interviews that the Chron thinks are utterly wacky:

*To author and philosopher Noam Chomsky:

*"How would you compare the propaganda system in the so-called free world to an authoritarian system? What are the differences?''

Umm, Chomsky is a brilliant linguist, an expert on the use of words. That's a perfectly legit question to ask him. And it's based on what anyone who follows the news media knows very well -- that a lot of what is presented as unbiased news is actually slanted to promote a point of view. Why is that strange or wacky?

OR:

*To Judi Bari, late "Earth First!" enviromental activist:

*"None of us is an isolated monad with this bundle of private property rights outside the fabric of these larger obligations. So I very much believe that it's time to take another step in the evolution of capitalism. Right now, I don't think the federal government can make that happen...it can't even operate what it owns, so that's not the answer. But we're on a track of real destruction socially and ecologically and we have to understand that as clearly as we can in order to come up with a better set of rules."

*To Wolfgang Sachs, author and enviromental researcher:

*"As you observe modernizing projects in the world today that are operated by multinational corporations without much interference from national governments, do you see fascistic elements there? There are certainly enormous changes imposed without the consent of the governed."

Again: Brown's points are pretty basic, pretty clear -- and almost indisputably correct.

The Sacramento Bee has had fun with some of Brown's old lefty stuff on KPFA, but again, I have to ask: What did he say that was wrong?

He called capital punishment "state murder" and said U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both Democrats, had "sold out" U.S. truck drivers by letting their Mexican counterparts drive uninspected vehicles into the United States.

In one of the most controversial excerpts, Brown called the prison system a racket that pumped profits out of the poor's misfortunes and into the pockets of prison guards.

"The big lockup is about drugs," Brown stated in an excerpt from late 1995. "Here's the real scam. The drug war is one of the games to get more convictions and prisoners. There's a lot of chemicals out there and when certain ones are made illegal, they become a huge profit opportunity and bring violence, crime and more people to imprison."

Again: What, exactly, is wrong with anything he said? It's all perfectly true.

More from the Bee:

Garry South, a top strategist for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gavin Newsom, said the KPFA (94.1 FM) broadcasts would make Brown vulnerable if he reaches the general election.

Brown opened an exploratory committee for a gubernatorial run last month but has not officially announced his candidacy.

"California Democrats need to ponder very seriously the prospect of putting up a candidate for governor who comes with reams of radio-show rantings and ravings like Brown," South wrote in an e-mail.

Rantings and ravings? Does Newsom support the death penalty? NAFTA? The drug war? If he does, that's a bigger problem than Brown's off-the-cuff radio remarks.

By Rebecca Bowe

The FOX nexus. Click here (PDF) for the full version, with key

If you picked up a print version of the Guardian this week, you might have noticed the relationship web we created to chart the GOP and corporate connections to News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News Channel. As we report in our Anniversary Issue, Fox has been criticized by the White House recently for its far-right slant, and its targeted attacks on Van Jones and ACORN have prompted outrage from the left. So we thought we'd investigate who sits on the Board of Directors of the mega-conglomerate that controls the so-called "fair and balanced" news channel, and drew up a chart of our findings.

Click here to download a PDF of the News Corporation relationship map and the in-depth explanation that goes with it. The chart only begins to outline the close ties between the GOP, mega banks, multinational industries such as petroleum and mining, and News Corporation.

By Marke B.

Where your Smart Water bottles go? All photos by Chris Jordan

We here at the Guardian have been keeping a close eye on the Pacific Gyre -- a giant formation made entirely from discarded trash, most of it plastic, swirling toiletwise a few hundred miles off the coast of Hawaii. I think of it everytime I'm in the Trader Joe's mummified vegetable section or contemplating a thickly pre-tubbed Whole Foods purchase. Who says organic can't be harmful in other ways?

Via Boing Boing, here's an amazing stomach-churning photo essay by Chris Jordan that brings the devastation home. Jordan documented the horrifying aftermath of albatross chicks being fed plastic debris from the gyre by their parents, who mistook the colorful flotsam for food. Per Jordan:

These images depict the actual stomach contents of baby birds in one of the world's most remote marine sanctuaries, more than 2000 miles from the nearest continent.... On this diet of human trash, every year tens of thousands of albatross chicks die on Midway from starvation, toxicity, and choking.

I don't know if there's anything to be done at this point to reverse the damage, other than unleash some sort of plastic eating bacteria which could potentially bring down our entire plastic-based civilization in an ironic blaze of sci-fi moralist glory. But, you know, let's use less.

View the entire series here

By Melanie Ruiz

This Saturday, Oct. 24, City College of San Francisco (CCSF) is holding a garage sale and flea market to raise money to help offset billions of dollars cut from the state's public education budget. The district lost $20-25 million this school year under the current state budget, a decision that Milton Marks, president of the CCSF Board of Trustees, says was “made in error and is short-sided.”

Marks admits that it, “really is absurd for the college to be doing this,” but said it illustrates what public agencies are being forced to do to survive in this no-tax climate. The money raised through the sale of donated goods will go to restoring classes and increasing counseling services for the spring semester. In August, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger created the “Great California Garage Sale,” in which state property was sold for just over $1.6 million, a drop in the bucket for the education sector's needs.

With furloughs, class cuts, and tuition increases littering our public education system, schools have to do something to mitigate the situation for both students and faculty, including fostering a sense of community. There has been great support from people, says Marks, as this event, “gives people a sense of community and helps them feel like they are able to do something.”

Text and video by Sarah Phelan

I posted this video--shot moments after the Board voted 8-2 to approve Sup. David Campos' amendment to the sanctuary ordinance-- to remind myself what it sounds like when folks that have been disenfranchised of their rights, and told there is no way to help them--feel that their concerns have been listened to--and acted upon.

Since Tuesday, when the Board supported Campos' legislation, all we've been hearing is how the mayor plans to ignore these folks and their concerns because he's afraid of the right wingers. But when I listen to this video, it reminds me of how folks felt last November, when the nation elected Obama, and how hope lives on, even in the hardest and unfairest of times.

By Just A Guy

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

Well, how do I put this? There’s really only one way: I told you so.,

Below is my blog posted on 9/16/09 in which I address the non-plan plan, in which I predicted what would happen.

I find it laughable that Gov. Schwarzenegger says he’s furious at the three-judge panel’s comdemnation of the state government’s weak plan and said that it is not the feds place to interfer with state government running prisons.

It’s like the biggest secret everyone knows -- California officials can’t wait to wash their hands of the prison fiasco and have the feds take over so they can avoid the perceived political suicide of early releases.

My next prediction is that the plan due in less than three weeks will still not measure up and the feds will take over. Enjoy the repost.

Text by Sarah Phelan

Rumors mount that a third review of Hugues de la Plaza's death exists, this time concluding it was a homicide. If true, these rumors also means his killer could still be walking the streets of San Francisco, knife at hand.

By most accounts, there exists a third but as yet undisclosed coroner’s report on the 2007 stabbing death of Hugues de la Plaza, a San Francisco resident with French and American dual nationality. Only this report allegedly concludes that de La Plaza’s death was a homicide, a finding that puts this review on the same page as a report that the French authorities released last year, and at odds with the findings of the San Francisco Medical Examiner's Office, which classified it as "undetermined" cause.

According to de la Plaza’s ex-girlfriend Melissa Nix, the SFPD and Medical Examiner Venus Azar, are sitting on this third review which was carried out, over 18 months ago, in Feb. 2008 by Marin County Medical Examiner Dr. Michael Ferenc (who used to work with the SF Medical Examiner's office) at the request of SFPD Deputy Chief of Investigations David Shinn (who is headed to SFO thanks to SFPD Chief George Gascon’s command staff shuffle).

Nix claims Ferenc completed his report pro bono in March 2008, gave it to both Shinn and Azar, then made repeated calls to Azar, but allegedly never heard back.

And the Chronicle cites Bill Fazio, the attorney for Hugues’ parents, saying that Ferenc’s report concludes that de la Plaza’s death was a murder.

But Fazio told us today that he has not seen the report, but simply heard about it from Ferenc, a few weeks ago.

“I need to get a copy,” said Fazio, adding that he hopes to have a three-way video conference between Azar, the French authorities and Ferenc, in the near future, third review in hand.

“Ferenc concludes without doubt that this was a homicide and doesn’t understand how anyone could think otherwise,” Fazio asserted.

While on the phone, Fazio pointed out that while the SFPD made a big deal of the fact that de la Plaza never called 911, as they sought to explain the SF Medical Examiner’s “undetermined cause of death” ruling, they did not make an equally big deal of the fact that de la Plaza was bleeding profusely and had a collapsed left lung, thanks to his knife wounds,.

But these two factors would have made it difficult for de la Plaza to breathe and speak, let alone call 911, before his death, Fazio said.

Noting that SFPD was also never able to explain why there was no knife in the apartment, if de la Plaza stabbed himself, then locked himself into his apartment to die, as was suggested, Fazio said, “I don’t understand why they don’t treat it as a homicide.”

Sup. Ross Mirkarimi also believes the Ferenc report exists and he wants to see it released as soon as possible.

“There are a number of independent testimonies that speak to its existence,” Mirkarimi said. “What’s unconscionable is if SFPD has been sitting on it all this time and not disclosing its existence. I think it’s stunning how these events have unfolded and been treated since day one. I am now wondering if there is an effort to cover up the dysfunctionality of how this case was treated.”

“As I have tried to stay on top of all the violent crimes in my district, this one never added up," Mirkarimi continued. “It needs to be dealt with in an honest and professional way.”

Mirkarimi also noted that the unresolved status of the de la Plaza death speaks to a larger worry: the role of unresolved homicides in the SFPD.

To date, no one at SFPD has given up the alleged Ferenc report, or made its contents public. But the SFPD released preliminary findings from a report by the LAPD—carried out at the request of newly sworn-in SFPD chief and former LAPD member George Gascón-- earlier this year, at which time SFPD claimed the LAPD report was leaning towards calling it a suicide.

But as Fazio notes, the LAPD report itself has not been made available nor has LAPD commented on it.

And as Fazio observes, at the very least, the release of the Ferenc report would constitute a tiebreaker, in a world where the French say that de la Plaza was murdered, the SFPD can’t say, and LAPD calls it a suicide.

And it would also offer de la Plaza’s family, who don't believe he killed himself, some long-sought solace. Assuming the Ferenc report exists. On the other hand, if it exists and its findings prove true, then this means that Hugues de la Plaza's killer may still be on the loose. Stay tuned.

By Tim Redmond

It’s taken me a few days to find the time to listen to the whole thing, but the Calitics interview with Gavin Newsom is interesting -- for what he says and for what he doesn’t.

Most of the time, Newsom talks in sound bites and platitudes, much as you would expect from a candidate for governor. (“We need order of magnitude change, I’m not running to fail more efficiently.”)

And he says, toward the end of the interview, that he supports and oil severance tax and a $1.50 a pack cigarette tax to fund education. He also says that California should tax services and lower the overall sales tax rate. And like many Democrats, he would restore the vehicle license fee that Gov. Schwarzenegger cut. Which all makes perfect sense.

But on the larger issue about revenue and services, he’s awfully squirrelly. He talks about how San Francisco funds universal health care and universal preschool -- “we value these programs by funding them, finding the resources and funding them.” But then talks about “reform” -- redirecting money from one program to another. (For example, right now he’s redirecting money away from front-line health-care workers).

And he proclaims:

“Let’s not accept the parameters that we have to tax or cut.”

Actually, that’s bullshit. Because in the end, you can find some waste and redirect it (we could, for example, release all drug offenders from prison and save a few billion dollars), but it’s almost impossible politically to do anything that saves that kind of money. The waste and redirection gets you pennies. In the end, the state’s actual spending hasn’t even kept up with population growth -- and that’s at a time when federal services have been cut and state and local government has had to take up the slack.

So actually, Mr. Mayor, you DO have to tax or cut. And what I haven’t heard him say yet is exactly how he’s going to make those decisions.

I also really like this line: “My number on priority in San Francisco has been job creation.” This from a mayor who has been responsible for about 1,000 layoffs of public-sector workers. Guess those jobs don’t count.

By Tim Redmond

It was hardly a bill of cosmic import, but Assemblymember Tom Ammiano’s AB 1176 would have helped the Port of San Francisco with some financing issues. It’s the kind of bill that legislators offer on behalf of their cities all the time -- and generally, they are non-controversial. This one was the same -- no substantive opposition, it passed both houses easily -- and normally, the governor would sign it with little fanfare.

But no: Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill -- and sent Ammiano and the legislators a remarkable veto letter. The letter says nothing about the substance of the bill; in fact, the language is really convoluted and it’s hard to figure out what the gov is really saying.

Here’s the official message:

But wait -- there’s a real message, an actual missive from the Gov to Tom, embedded in this text. And it’s not hard to find -- in fact, it’s hard to believe it could have been a coincidence.

Read down the letters on the left side of the message

Well, maybe Arnold is still mad at being told to "kiss my gay ass", but this is a rather puerile way for the governor of California to be spending his time.

Let's not forget -- there was a substantive bill here that would have helped San Francisco. So the gov is not just telling the entire Legislature Fuck You, he's also saying it to the city and county of SF.

What an asshole. No wonder it's hard to get anything done in Sacramento; the gov's office is full of frat boys spending hours (and it would have taken hours to get this exactly right) making stupid little-boy jokes.

(His press office hasn't returned my call seeking comment on this; I'll let you know if they do.)

More on SFBG:

>>The lesson of California: The Golden State that invented the tax revolt is failing, but the conservative movement presses on

>>Attack of the right-wing nuts: The manipulations and media machine behind the assault on progressive ideas

Guardian graphic by Ben Hopfer

text and photos by Caitlin Donohue

Jazz Mafia's horn section trumpets their support for the EC at yesterday's City Hall demonstration

It’s not everyday that Jazz Mafia plays the steps of City Hall. Hell, it’s not everyday that the San Francisco nightclub community rallies for an event before five p.m. But both went down yesterday in observation of a big battle in the war on fun.

The Friends of the Entertainment Commission turned out hundreds of venue owners, festival promoters and music fans for a committee hearing on legislation that would increase the Commission’s autonomy. Should the proposed changes be signed into law, the regulatory body that oversees nightclubs and special events would have the power to quickly shut down troublesome nightspots and give out special event extended hours permits. Also under debate was a proposal by Sup. David Chiu that would cap the special hours permits if they rose 15% above their current level (a “small amount” now, even in the words of Chiu) over the next year.

The scene inside the hearing room made it clear that we’re in the middle of a culture war. Protesting the increase of the EC’s authority were police officers insisting that public safety demanded clubs and events be given a shorter leash and NIMBY activists showing grainy peeping tom-like videos that showed two scuffles outside Union Square clubs and a whole lot of… people standing in lines. Look, that man is leaning against a wall! Mayhem! We’re under siege!

By Tim Redmond

.... is that even chain stores like Whole Foods, which a lot of people don't think of in the same way they think of Home Depot and Starbucks, can spell the death of locally owned, independent businesses. I love Drewes Brothers meats on Church St. The people who work there are friendly and informative, and it feels like a real butcher shop. It's also been there about 100 years.

And now, thanks to Whole Foods, it's in serious trouble.

Which means all the money that once went to a local, independent store is now going to get sucked out of town every night and off to Whole Foods HQ in Austin, Texas.

Places like Whole Foods come and go, but when you lose a Drewes Bros, it's gone forever -- and so is part of San Francisco.

By Rebecca Bowe

The Guardian has received several accounts that paid signature gatherers for a ballot initiative backed by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. that could darken prospects statewide for public-power programs were pitching it in a way that, at best, wasn’t entirely straightforward. And by several accounts, the petition has stopped circulating because proponents successfully gathered the 694,354 signatures needed before it can qualify for the ballot.

One voter wrote to say that a canvasser approached him in Pasadena seeking signatures for two different petitions: the PG&E-backed initiative, and a proposal to legalize and tax marijuana. Once he signed the petition to legalize pot, she asked him to sign the PG&E petition as if it were merely a second copy, he charged. She later stated that she had been instructed by her supervisor to do so, according to his account.

The Guardian also got reports that signature gatherers have denied that the petition was funded by PG&E, told people that signing it would result in lower utility rates, or described it as an initiative to promote clean energy in California.

In reality, the initiative, which was previously titled the Taxpayers Right to Vote Act, would require a two-thirds majority vote before any community choice aggregation program could be funded or implemented. This could jeopardize San Francisco’s fledgling CleanPower SF, a community choice aggregation program that would provide San Franciscans with electricity from cleaner energy sources. The Board of Supervisors voted 10-1 to oppose the initiative.

While voters can -- and should -- read the title and summary of a proposed initiative before signing on the dotted line, canvassers who are paid by the signature clearly have an incentive to speed the process along and frame a proposal in a favorable light. And if signature gatherers stand outside health food stores in the Bay Area asking voters to support legalizing marijuana and developing clean energy, it’s an easy sell.

Text and photos by Sarah Phelan

Campos moments after Board approves his legislation to give juvenile immigrants their day in court.

Sup. David Campos said today that Mayor Gavin Newsom lacks the authority to ignore the city’s newly amended sanctuary ordinance. And he rebuked the mayor for making it sound, in comments Newsom made to Fox News, as if being a suspect is the same thing as being a convicted criminal.

“I think it’s important for us to look at the facts before we generalize and make comments,” Campos said.

Campos’ comments came as a veto-proof majority of the Board approved the second reading of Campos proposal to give immigrant juveniles their day in court before handing them over to the feds.

Flanked by Ariana Gil-Nafarrate of Mujeres Unidas y Activas and Angela Chan of the Asian Law Caucus, Estella, an immigrant mother, recalls how ICE put a hold on her 15-year-old daughter after a fight in school.

Campos proposal changes a policy that Newsom ordered in June 2008, after city probation officials were apprehended in Texas, escorting Hondurans teens to their country of origin.

Campos agrees that the city should halt that practice, and that city officials should refer juvenile felons to ICE. But he disagrees with Newsom’s current practice, which has led to 150 kids being referred to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE.) to ICE, without first having had the chance to establish their innocence.

Campos says he expects the city to change this policy, as stipulated under his amendment. He says Newsom has 10 days to veto his legislation, and the Board has 30 days to override it, after which the City must change its policy so juveniles are not reported to ICE until they are found guilty of a felony by a juvenile justice.

To illustrate his point about the limits of mayoral power, Campos referred to the California Supreme Court ruling that was triggered by Newsom’s 2004 announcement that he intended to start marrying same-sex couples.

“Even though we have a strong mayor system, the power of the mayor is not absolute,” Campos said. “That’s why we have the Board to enact laws that are reflective of the will of the people.”

If mayors were able to selectively ignore laws, Campos pointed out, "That would be depriving people affected by that law their due process.”

“A public official faithfully upholds the constitution by complying with the mandates of the legislature, leaving the courts the decision of whether the mandates are valid,” Campos said, referring to the state Supreme Court ruling.

“It’s a fallacy that elected officials can ignore a law enacted by the legislature," Campos continued. "When this law is passed, when the mayor decides to veto it, when the Board decides to override it, we ask the Mayor to do his constitutional duty: let this law be implemented as the system requires it to be. We expect nothing less.”

“It’s been a long time coming,” Campos said, referring to the community's battle to amend a unilateral policy decision that Newsom made 16 months ago. “This is a proud day for San Francisco, this is a victory for the community. This shows that San Francisco is committed to the notion that we are all human beings, that we are all treated equally."

Asked about Newsom's claims that the Campos amendment opens up the entire sanctuary ordinance to challenge, Campos said, “I think the biggest danger to the sanctuary policy was the mayor’s decision to release a confidential memo."

Asked about Newsom's claims that the Campos amendment opens up city workers to civil and criminal lawsuits, Campos said "I don’t think he can point to any instance where a city employee has been found liable for following sanctuary ordinance."

Noting that the sanctuary ordinance just celebrated its 20th anniversary, Campos added, "We expect the mayor and every employee of the city to follow laws that have been duly enacted and If the Mayor does not enact it, then Board will look at its options, including a legal challenge."

Campos words were followed by the tearful recollections of an immigrant single mother called Estella, who talked about how her 15-year old daughter had an ICE hold placed on her after she got into fight at school.

Following Estella's public testimony, Abigail Trillin, a staff attorney with LEgal Services for Children, said she like someone from the Mayor’s Office to publicy debate the sanctuary issue with Campos.

"If the mayor's position is that a minor, who has not been found guilty, needs to be reported to immigration, let’s talk about that," Trillin said. " But let’s not put fake federal laws in the way. There is no federal law that says juveniles that are arrested on a felony must be reported. That's a smoke and mirror thing."

Pointing to recent statements from law enforcement chiefs in Los Angeles and Sacramento who are supportive of sanctuary laws, Trilliin added, "Anyone who knows about juvenile justice and public safety knows that reporting people who haven’t been found guilty destroys community trust."

By Tim Redmond

Wow, this thing got a lot of attention -- I think it shows how much fascination the world has with our lame, incompetant and famous governor. Check out the comments and you'll notice something else: The minute Matier and Ross on sfgate picked this up, the right-wing nuts started weighing in, which makes you wonder (or not wonder) who exactly reads the San Francisco Chronicle.

At any rate, Supervisor David Chiu has done the math and concludes that it's highly unlikely this was a mistake:

Assuming it was real, I calculated the probability that this is pure chance. Assuming it's a 1/26 chance for each particular letter, the probability that this is random is one out of 8,031,810,176.

By Rebecca Bowe

Naomi Klein showed a portion of this film clip during her lecture at UC Berkeley last night. In it, Arnold talks about how Milton Friedman changed his life.

Speaking at the University of California at Berkeley yesterday evening, award-winning journalist and author Naomi Klein lamented the sweeping budgetary cuts to education, women's shelters, and a host of critical social services that have rocked California in recent months.

“When these cuts are imposed, it’s constantly portrayed in the media as if it’s an unfortunate and painful necessity,” she said. On the contrary, she argued, the gutting of the public sector in California is no coincidence.

Klein pointed to an overarching conservative agenda that touts free-market capitalism and limited government, and resists raising revenues with tax increases. (We referenced Klein’s book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, in our cover story last week. So it’s also not a coincidence that our cover package, “The California Nightmare,” touched on many of the same themes.)

Klein showed a brief film clip that included footage of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger praising the ideas of conservative free-market economist Milton Friedman. “What you always have to remember in this discussion is that your governor is a hardcore ideologue,” Klein said after showing a clip in which Schwarzenegger is seen gushing, “Dr. Friedman changed my life!”

“These pet Republican policies have been lying around,” Klein said. “These ideas are still incompatible with democracy, still deeply unpopular.” Nonetheless, they’re being rolled out in uncertain times and unstable places, according to Klein, while masquerading as emergency measures.

Text and photos by Sarah Phelan

All mothers of immigrant youth, like Estella (center) are asking, is for the City to give their kids a day in court before handing them over to the feds for possible deportation. Is that really too much to ask?

No one was surprised when Mayor Gavin Newsom vetoed the Board's newly passed sanctuary ordinance amendment today. That's because the mayor, in between leaking confidential memos, has been threatening to do that for months

But Newsom's move leaves the Board mulling its options, including legal action, since mayors don't seem to have the authority to refuse to enact legislation that's been approved by a veto-proof majority of supervisors.

Newsom's move also raises the question of the whereabouts of the 114 juveniles who have been picked up by federal immigration authorities since the mayor began requiring city probation officers to act like extensions of the federal government.

Under the policy that Newsom ordered without public input or review in June 2008, city officials are required to refer kids to US immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) based solely on allegations that they have committed a felony and on the probation officers' own suspicions that these kids are undocumented.

That seems like a huge burden to place on the probation officers' shoulders. And meanwhile, we are not aware of
anyone in the Mayor's Office giving any kind of public accounting of where these 114 youth,s who have been disappeared with the help of our tax payer dollars, are being held, or whether they actually have been deported.

Meanwhile, immigrant advocates report that they have had zero success getting Newsom to meet them in person, in the 16 months since the mayor ordered his policy shift, last summer.

Recently, faced with leaked memos and a damaging misinformation campaign , it's fallen to the parents of these disappeared children to explain the painful consequences of having their kids unjustly ripped from their families, and still the mayor refuses to meet with them.

Newsom claims that the sanctuary policy "was never meant to serve as a shield for people accused of committing serious crimes."

If that's true, then the policy needs the Campos amendment to make it a just and fair treatment of immigrant youth.

Under the Campos amendment, any immigrant juvenile found guilty of having committed a serious crime will be deported. But those found innocent will be spared the terrifying experience of finding themselves in federal hands, awaiting deportation, even though they never actually committed a felony crime.

Campos has repeatedly pointed out that federal law does not require city officials to act as federal agents.

But so far, Newsom's policy has done just that, and has already led to a 15-year old girl being whisked off to Miami, because she got in a fight with her sister, a 14-year old boy being taken into federal custody because he brought a BB gun to school, another youth being picked up by ICE for graffiti infractions, all because San Francisco probation officials picked up the phone and called ICE, before those kids had a chance to prove their innocence,

That's why eight supervisors, representing a city a third of whose inhabitants are foreign born, voted yesterday to make a minor amendment that will majorly improve Newsom's policy. And for that, the Board should be commended.

By Tim Redmond

Wow, even the San Francisco Chronicle is critical of Gov. Schwarzenegger's elementary-school-level prank. (My ten-year old son saw the letter on my desk yesterday and read it and said: "Is that guy really the governor of California?")

It's been fun watching the national news media go gaga over this, in part because nobody wants to use the word "fuck." Here's the New York Times:

The message can be seen only by a careful reading of the printed version of the veto statement. By taking the first letter of each line, beginning with the third line, two words emerge: The first is obscene; the second is “you."

The Times also had trouble with Ammiano telling the guv to "kiss my gay ass." That came out like this:

Mr. Ammiano, who is gay and was upset over cuts to state-financed AIDS programs, shouted at the governor, calling him a liar. Mr. Ammiano also apparently shouted another — more vulgar — insult.

Most of the news coverage, though, has missed one of the key points -- this was a bill that would have helped San Francisco finance port repairs. It was uncontroversial, he no opposition, and would have cost the state nothing. So the Guv not only made an ass of himself; he hurt the city of San Francisco in the process.

By Rebecca Bowe

Have you ever noticed that when routines are interrupted, people are more likely to strike up conversations with strangers? My morning took an unexpected turn yesterday when I arrived at the Macarthur BART station to find a news van and television crew out front, filming the hordes of commuters who were in line to purchase train tickets. Everyone seemed stressed out. Newspaper headlines everywhere screamed of the Bay Bridge closure.

I had my bike, and it was a little while before the BART bike ban would lift, so I wound up chatting with another cyclist while the mad dash for the train continued around us. After seeing how many people were crowding into the station, we decided to bike over to the West Oakland BART instead, which we guessed might be a little less mobbed.

Of all the people I could have possibly befriended amid the chaos of the Bay Bridge shutdown, it ended up being Chad Benjamin Potter, who helped create the Naked Clown Calendar 2010. He told me he got involved in the creation of the calendar through the San Francisco Circus Center, where he’s learning aerial arts. The circus school was co-founded by Judy Finelli, an accomplished juggler who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1989. A third of proceeds from the calendar go toward multiple sclerosis research and advocacy through the MS Society.

“The Naked Clown Calendar is the perfect gift for any occasion,” according to the project Web site. “The images are a little racier than last year, but still retain that sense of modesty and fun that any grandmother could love!”

Today, the calendar got a mention on USA Today’s Pop Candy blog.

When we got to West Oakland, there was yet another camera crew filming all the stressed-out commuters. Getting back and forth from the East Bay to San Francisco might be a royal pain in the ass while the Bay Bridge is closed, but you never know who you’ll meet when things don’t go according to plan.

By Tim Redmond

The Arizona Supreme Court has just ruled that metadata -- that is, internal electronic coding embedded in word-processing documents -- is a matter of public record.

That's a major ruling: It's the first time a court has said that government agencies have to produce the metadata in their records -- something public-records activists have been pushing for several years now.

The ruling doesn't directly apply in California, but it could have an impact in San Francisco, where sunshine advocates have been fighting for access to metadata. Too early to know if the city attorney will now accept the AZ precedent, but Kimo Crossman and the Sunshine Posse will be pushing the issue.

A group of San Franciscans who’ve been pushing for complete closure of the Mirant Potrero Power plant traveled to Folsom, Calif. today to testify before the California Independent System Operator (Cal-ISO), a quasi-governmental agency that has required the plant to stay open for reliability purposes despite longstanding opposition from elected officials and grassroots organizations.

“I keep hearing the word ‘stakeholders,’” noted Marie Harrison, an organizer with San Francisco-based Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice, following comments delivered by the Cal-ISO’s Board of Governors. “I simply want to let you know that your biggest stakeholders are not at the table -- and that be us,” she said. “I realize that the grammar is not quite correct, but I did that purposely, because I needed to have your attention when I say that. Unless we are at the table with, quote, the stakeholders, you don’t really have a true representation.”

The aging power plant has been opposed by multiple community organizations, Boards of Supervisors, and San Francisco mayors, but it remains in full operation. And as of today's Board of Governor's meeting, the most the Cal-ISO would commit to is removing the largest unit by the middle of next year, despite an agreement that the San Francisco City Attorney's office struck with Mirant to shutter the entire plant by the end of 2010.

Others who turned out from San Francisco included John Lau, an aide to Sup. Sophie Maxwell; Theresa Mueller, representing the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office; and two representatives from the Brightline Defense Project, a nonprofit organization that focuses on environmental justice.

“We really are almost there,” Mueller told the ISO Board of Governors. “We would like to push you as much as we can on the Unit 3 closure.” As for the other units, "We’ve submitted comments to you over the course of the last few months based on work that PG&E has done, work that we’ve done, and work that the ISO staff has done, and we believe those units will not be needed after 2010," she added.

Unit 3 is the primary electric generating unit at the plant. Powered by natural gas, it operates close to 24 hours a day, and community organizers say it has contributed to health problems in the city’s Southeast sector. At today’s meeting, Cal-ISO representatives said that Unit 3 could be released from a requirement to stay in operation by the middle of next year -- provided the TransBay Cable comes online as scheduled. That's much later than San Francisco activists and elected officials had hoped for.

By Melanie Ruiz

Two years after Mayor Gavin Newsom shut down the Halloween celebration in the Castro, killing off one of San Francisco’s signature party events, a local flash mob dance promoter is trying to bring back the spirit, with an unauthorized dance party on the Embarcadero.

Amandeep “Deep” Jawa is organizing a “Take Back Halloween” party Saturday night in front of the Ferry Building. He’s arranged for at least two mobile DJs to spin and more than 300 people have signed up on Facebook. However, he has no permits for the event, and admits it’s entirely possible the police will shut him down.

“This is all a big experiment,” Deep told me. “We have no idea how it will turn out, but let's try. We think it will be awesome.”

Aside from the obvious how-to's (ahem: Wear a costume!), his web site message encourages people to do such outlandish things as “HELP clean up after yourself AND OTHERS” and “Sure, have a drink if you want! But make sure drinking isn't the focus of the night.”

By Tim Redmond

So Gavin Newsom made official what so many have been speculating on for so long: He's out of the governor's race.

And I suspect that means he'll be in the city until his term ends in 2012.

There's been a lot of talk of him running for lieutenant gov, but one source in City Hall who is close to Newsom told me that's unlikely -- because if he won the second-tier post and left the city for Sacramento, the Board of Supervisors would be able to choose his replacement.

"His supporters here would be furious," the source said. "It's one thing to turn the city over to David Chiu and Aaron Peskin to take over as governor of California. But to do it for the worthless lieutenant governor job? The money people would never forgive him."

By Rebecca Bowe and Rachel Sadon

At a Halloween-themed press conference on the steps of City Hall this afternoon, Supervisors Bevan Dufty and Ross Mirkarimi warned that PG&E plans to disseminate misleading information about the city’s Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program.

The attack comes on the heels of the Board of Supervisor’s approval of a request for proposals for Clean Power SF, San Francisco’s own fledgling CCA, which seeks to provide competitively priced and significantly greener energy than PG&E. The CCA would challenge PG&E’s monopoly in the San Francisco Bay Area, and the utility is expected to fight it tooth and nail.

Sup. Dufty got a heads up from a PG&E employee this morning that mailers criticizing the program would be sent out tomorrow. Recalling last year’s multimillion dollar campaign against Prop H, an initiative for public power, Dufty emphasized that the city does not nearly have the funds to match a misinformation campaign.

Tom Ammiano denounced PG&E and their tactics as “avaricious, criminal, morally corrupt” and “a throwback to robber barons.”

Though the content of the mailers is unknown, it has already created a stir around City Hall and throughout the community that is advocating for community choice. At the press conference, which was scheduled with very little advance notice, Dufty and Mirkarimi were joined by Sup. David Campos, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission director Ed Harrington, state senator Mark Leno, and Sierra Club representatives Michael Borenstein and John Rizzo.

Mirkarimi, chair of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), insisted that “San Francisco is steadfast in its commitment to Community Choice Aggregation,” and stressed that “PG&E continues to mock our commitment to green energy and will do everything in their power to circumvent the process.”