Prop. D and privatizationBy 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.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (5)
What's wrong with the existing life in mid-Market, the people who live there, more so than the people that the SFPD allows to ply their trades there, and how can the upglitzing of that edge of the TL and SOMA not damage the existing, beneficial biota?
-marc
Posted by marcos | October 19, 2009 03:39 PM
Dear Reader,
Don't let Mayor Gavin Newsome and his business friends fool you this is nothing but back door way of the mid -market redevelopment plan back on the table. The CBD has no plans on helping the residents out who live within the two blocks area.
We are talking about big big money and lots of it. I'm a resident in the south of market' community the CBD said it will impove the neighborhod but thats a lie it will not do anything. The teants who live in the SRO will end - up getting hurt hear.This is nothing but a plan to push poor people out of the city. And build an neighborhood for the rich.
Ms. Jazzie L.Collins.
Transgender Female.
Posted by jazzie collins | October 19, 2009 03:56 PM
Once mid-Market is all gussied up with flash and dazzle "art" and all the expendable humans who exist there now are shooshed away, which neighborhood will get the benefit of being magically transformed into the new home of these folks who are the victims of an economic system that can never provide them with a decent standard of living? Does Randy Shaw--or anybody--really believe that doing something like this actually solves a problem?
Posted by Alan Collins | October 19, 2009 07:58 PM
Hate to break it to ya' Alan, but no economic system, anywhere can magically transform the "expendable humans" who are the victims of chronic alcoholism, drug addiction, lack of integrity and generally poor hygene...
At some point the individual is responsbile for solving their problems and taking control of their habits, harnessing their willpower and showing up in employable condition, regardless of the job. If a million illegals can do it, why not the "expendable" of mid-market.
In the meantime, just how fair is it to hold the other people of SF hostage to a constant barrage of begging, threats, public intoxication, urination, and worse...and what "economic system" guarantees housing, food, medical care, clothing, etc. to those who cannot create any other possibility for themselves? Even Care Not Cash was not enough to permanently address the chronic needs of some.
at the very least redevelopment creates some jobs for those willing to step up to the plate.
Posted by will muir | October 20, 2009 12:48 PM
D sounds like a turkey - benefits iffy, no real up side. So I'll make a point to vote no.
Side issue - who ever said Willie Brown made the Trains-Run-On-Time? Election day, after a particularly experience with Muni, I changed my mind about ignoring the election to vote against Brown precisely because he didn't make the Trains-Run-On-Time. We haven't had a decent Mayor since Moscone; remember the total meltdown caused by the T fiasco?
I'll never understand why we keep electing and then re-electing these idiots, despite their dismal performances. And I'll never understand why the thousands of folks dependent on Muni don't revolt and demand an efficient, well-run system. This town is perfect for mass transit and it's a crying shame that our transit system is run and operated by people who don't give a damn. Any competent office manager could run it better.
Just because we have a Mediterranean climate, we don't have to have a Mediterranean mind set.
Posted by Charles olsrud | November 2, 2009 03:32 AM