By Just A Guy

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

I believe it to be an imperative that opposing views should be a part of any dialogue. This is especially true in the comments section of my blog. While we, as inmates, are given a very limited voice, we (or I) should not preclude people who believe differently from being a part of the discussions. Were I to do that, I would be just like the mainstream media, the majority of politicians, and a seeming majority of law enforcement that only reports one side of the story -- which is almost always assumed by a largely vapid public to be true.

It is alarming, though, that when someone with an opposing view posts his or her comments, they mostly seem to degrade into name calling and derision. Case in point would be bobjacboson, who commented about my blog a few weeks ago and accused me of being psychotic.

When I read comments such as bob’s, I can’t help but wonder if the commenters even read the post before making their thoughts known to the public.

I believe I opened that blog stating that I could not be explicit for fear of retaliation, but bob railed one me for not being explicit. Sigh.

Please read before you comment, bob, then think. But I’m going to give you an example of what I was talking about.

Text by Sarah Phelan

Sup. David Campos has responded to Mayor Gavin Newsom’s Oct. 28 veto of his proposal to restore due process to all youth in the city’s juvenile justice system... by inviting Newsom to publicly debate the issue.

Campos said he is extending the invitation because the mayor's veto, “raises more questions than it answers,”

Campos noted that a veto-proof majority of the Board support his legislation, “because it advances the public safety, inclusion and anti-discrimination goals of our city’s 20-year-old sanctuary ordinance, and because it was carefully vetted with the City Attorney’s Office, which approved it to form.”

Observed that there has been, “ a lot of misinformation about what federal law does and does not require in this context," Campos also sought to clarify how federal law intersects with the duties of local city employees.

“To be clear, city officials have no affirmative legal duty under federal law to expend limited local resources and funding on immigration enforcement," Campos said.

Campos cited a July 1, 2008 public memo from the City Attorney’s Office which stated that federal civil law does not require the city to give federal authorities information about children in its juvenile justice system that are suspected of being undocumented.

“In fact, a plethora of legal experts from Yale Law School, Stanford Law School, and UC Davis Law School have all agreed that there is no federal duty to inquire or report,” Campos said. “Moreover, the confidentialiity of juvenile records is protected under state law.”

Noting that the City Attorney's office and legal experts have made clear that his proposed amendment is “a legally tenable measure,” Campos observed that, “the point at which a referral of a minor is made to ICE is ultimately not a legal decision but a policy decision.”

Campos said he feels a public discussion is appropriate in light of recent comments that Newsom plans not to enforce the amendment.

“The Board and the people of San Francisco deserve to understand more fully why you intend to ignore this policy and the time honored democratic processes followed in enacting it,” Campos said.

“At stake is the protection of innocent immigrant children that have been unjustly separated from their families,” he wrote, citing Juvenile Probation Department 2008 statistics, which show that the majority (68%) of arrested youth were later found innocent of the alleged charges.

“It is important to clarify that there is a huge distinction between child who is merely suspected of having committed a crime and a child who is found by a court to have committed a crime ,”Campos said. “Indeed, our criminal justice system rests on the principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty; that is why providing youth an opportunity to contest a charge in court is a matter of basic due process.”

Observing that UC Davis Professor Bill Ong Hing confirmed to the Board’s Public Safety Committee on Oct.5 that there is nothing in federal and state law that would nullify his amendment, Campos said, “The current policy is creating a climate of fear in immigrant communities, which means that immigrants who have been victims or witnesses to crimes are afraid to come forward. When we uphold the fundamental American value of due process for all of our city's youth, that will make all of us safer as well."

By Tim Redmond

State Sen. Mark Leno is asking the leadershiop of the state Democratic Party to pass an emergency measure opposing Pacific Gas and Electric Co's plans for a statewide initiative against public power.

Leno told me he will travel to San Diego Nov. 14th to personally introduced a resolution to the party's Executive Board putting the party on record in opposition to the measure. The company has been paying signature gatherers to collect enough names to place the measure on next spring's statewide ballot.

The board is meeting that weekend. Since this would be an emergency measure, Leno said, any member of the Resolutions Committee could block it. But Leno thinks that's unlikely; "who," he asked, "is going to stand up and defend PG&E right now?"

Story and photos by Steven T. Jones

Cops immediately shut down the street party outside the Ferry Building...

While there are some good things about the engaged style of new Police Chief George Gascon, it’s been a major disappointment to watch the SFPD take a zero tolerance approach to public partying in recent weeks, making San Francisco less hospitable to the fun, free, grassroots events that make this such a great city.

On Halloween night, the cops shut down the Take Back Halloween Flashdance party before organizer Amandeep Jawa even turned on his stereo (luckily, that resourceful crew stealthily relocated to Pier 7 and threw a great dance party that didn’t hurt or offend anyone).

...so Deep secretly moved it to nearby Pier 7.

The next day, the Brass Tax Halloween Renegade dance party – the highlight of Halloween for many lovers of the beat -- got shut down by the cops in each of three remote spots, for no good reason.

The victimless criminals of Brass Tax covered a lot of ground yesterday.

By Tim Redmond

The mayor doesn't like the Campos sanctuary legislation, and won't even debate Campos over it (chickenshit; no wonder he couldn't get elected governor).

So here's what the mayor doesn't want to talk about: Kids who are doing nothing wrong -- good kids, San Francisco kids going to high school and getting good grades -- winding up hauled off the streets and shipped to out-of-town detention centers for possible deportation.

in mid-september, an 18 year old client of mine, let’s call him carlos, went missing for two days. he was waiting for his uncle at a bus stop on 9th and market where a witness told his uncle that the police took him away. his family called the police to locate him, but could not find him. finally, carlos called his family and told them he was in an ICE detention center in arizona. apparently, an undercover police officer tackled him from behind and started asking him questions in english. he didn’t understand and this seemed to upset the police officer more. carlos said the officer hit him, put him in a police car, and took him to 850 bryant. he didn’t get a phone call until he was in arizona.

Thanks to MissionMission for that story. I can tell you, there are many, many more like it in San Francisco.

CITY ATTORNEY
Dennis Herrera

TREASURER
Jose Cisneros

CONGRESS, 10th DISTRICT
John Garamendi

PROP A: YES

PROP B: YES

PROP C: NO

PROP D: NO

PROP E: YES

View our entire endorsement arguments here

By Steven T. Jones

The three-year-old injunction against any bicycle-related improvements in San Francisco has gotten downright surreal. There was a court hearing yesterday before Judge Peter Busch, at which city officials and bike advocates hoped the unusually broad injunction would finally be lifted.

Instead, the judge indicated he may wait until early next year for a full hearing on whether the San Francisco Bicycle Plan’s Environmental Impact Report – developed over the last two years at a cost of more than $1 million – fully complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (the city originally didn’t do a full-blown EIR on the bike plan, which was what led to the injunction).

The city will prepare a list of planned near-term improvements for the judge by this Friday, and both sides will be submitting briefs before another hearing on Nov. 12, addressing whether changes could be undone if the injunction is partially lifted now and the judge later rules the EIR is inadequate. Streetsblog SF has a good discussion of the issue, including input from Rob Anderson, who brought the lawsuit that led to the injunction.

But there’s an even more basic absurdity here. Installing bike racks or painting sharrows on the road doesn’t hurt anyone, and it promotes activity that is unquestionably good for the environment, which was the intention of CEQA. Meanwhile, the Legislature and governor have waived CEQA entirely for a massive proposed football stadium in Southern California (which may be used to lure away the 49ers).

So, San Francisco has now completed and certified an EIR, but we’re still not allowed to even put in a single bike rack. Yet a massive new stadium and billions of dollars worth of federal spending on local freeway expansions get approved with no consideration given to their environmental impacts. Does this strike anyone else as surreal?

By Melanie Ruiz

It's not fair!...Or not equal, anyway.

A chart we've created -- you can see it here (PDF) -- shows how the city's unions fared during the layoffs and forced givebacks of the last budget cycle. The cuts shown are for Fiscal Year 2009-2010. The layoff figures cover the past three fiscal years.

The figures show that Service Employee International Union (SEIU) Local 1021, representing many front-line workers, took by far the largest hit. For example, Local 1021's city employees and per diem nurses gave back 3.22% of their total pay and benefits base, whereas the Municipal Executives' Association (MEA), which represents higher-paid managers, only gave back 1.5%.

The chart, compiled from data provided by the Controller's Office, seems to support the argument that Local 1021 members have been making for months: Mayor Gavin Newsom has balanced the budget by cutting front-line, lower-paid workers instead of skimming the fat from upper management corridors.

Ed Kinchley, a member of Local 1021's health care division bargaining team, says he “doesn't understand why the mayor doesn't get it -- that the people at our level, who are often providing services directly to the general public, need to be properly compensated and treated with some respect.” The numbers show that Local 1021 has been hit hardest by layoffs. Kinchley says it's “blatantly unfair” that over the past three fiscal years, 82% of the city’s layoffs have been from SEIU bargaining units.

There are more managers than in the past, yet fewer line workers to manage. Kinchley doesn't see any sensible explanation for these figures, “except for observing the mayor to be out to get us and our union.” For laborers on the front-lines, there is something important that the numbers don't convey - the consequences of real people loosing their their livelihoods and San Franciscans losing crucial public services.

Nathan Ballard, Newsom's press spokesperson, hasn't yet responded to our request for comment.

The Board of Supervisors Budget Committee will hold a hearing tomorrow on legislation by Sup. John Avalos that would trim management positions to save health-care workers; Sup. Chris Daly has another bill to restore funding for front-line health workers. “We will be there,” says Kinchley. “We are looking with a lot of interest in supporting what Supervisors Avalos and Daly are doing at the board.”

By Rebecca Bowe

State lawmakers stayed up late last night working on historic legislation that will revamp California’s water system. The Senate OK’d a $9.9 billion bond, which includes $3 billion for the creation of new reservoirs, which would need to go to voters for final approval. It also approved a bill that establishes new statewide water conservation targets at 20 percent less water by 2020. Lawmakers are expected to continue debating other water policy proposals and could vote on the rest of the package today, but a deal isn’t certain yet.

The bills are meant to address a host of problems associated with the state water-supply system. Voluminous water pumping has wreaked havoc ecologically in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, but farms in the Central Valley have had to fallow fields due to less water becoming available for irrigation during the drought. Meanwhile, aging earthen levees throughout the Delta are highly vulnerable to the effects of a natural disaster, which could interrupt a huge portion of the state’s water-delivery system.

Even as the deal enters the final phase of negotiation, a host of local elected officials, organizations representing the salmon fishing industry, Delta interests, and other conservation groups say they’re unhappy with the way things are shaping up. A key concern is that environmental protections will take a back seat to water infrastructure projects.

By Steven T. Jones and Rebecca Bowe

With a unanimous vote by the Board of Supervisors today, San Francisco took a big step into the clean energy business, approving the issuance of a Request for Proposals for projects that will be part of the Clean Power SF program that will compete for customers with Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

The city’s version of the so-called Community Choice Aggregation program has involved “seven years of preparing San Francisco to get into the green energy business,” said Sup. Ross Mirkarimi, who has shepherded the program as chair of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo).

While PG&E has relentlessly attacked CCA efforts, both locally and through a statewide initiative campaign for would require a two-thirds popular vote for counties to create them, the 11-0 vote here seems to indicate Clean Power SF isn’t as controversial as PG&E would like people to believe.

“This step is a very important step and it’s been an eye-opening experience to serve on LAFCo,” Sup. Bevan Dufty, referring to opposition from PG&E and some of its business community allies and adding, “When the public understands the issues, they like competition and a more sustainable city.”

By Tim Redmond

For results from San Francisco, where there's nothing of monumental import on the ballot, gay marriage is too close to call in Maine and a gay-marriage-lite measure looks good in Washington.

If we win both of those -- particularly if we win in Maine -- I think it will be the turning point in the battle for marriage equality. Once voters in one state reject bigotry, the movement will spread -- and California will repeal Prop. 8 next year.

By Tim Redmond

And a couple of surprises.

With just the absentee ballots in -- traditionally the most conservative votes -- Prop. A is cruising to victory. No surprise there -- that one was going to win easy.

Prop. B, which would take out of the City Charter the mandate that the supervisors hire no more than two staffers -- is actually ahead in the absentees. That's a big surprise -- I suspected that the more conservative voters would buy the argument that the supes will just run wild and hire armies of staffers.

But there's a message here -- people LIKE district elections, and for the most part (while the reputation of legislative bodies in general ain't that great) people seem to LIKE the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. They seem to realize that the board members have a huge amount of work to do, and need more help to properly serve voth the city and their own districts.

Prop. C, allowing the city to sell naming rights to Candlestick, is winning and will will handily.

Prop. D -- the controversial measure to allow electronic billboards in Mid-Market -- is losing, narrowly -- but as the more progressive votes come in, that will widen and Prop. D will go down.

Oh -- City Attorney Dennis Herrera and Treasurer Jose Cisneros are getting re-elected.

By Tim Redmond

We won't know anything for sure until tomorrow, but the bad guys have pulled (slightly) ahead in Maine. The Bangor Daily News seems to have the latest results, but there's lot of talk and updates here.

If we lose in Maine, I think it will be even more imperative to go back to the ballot in CA next year -- the "wait until 2012" crowd needs to realize that you can't sit around and let the right wing keep the momentum on this. The only way same-sex marriage is going to be fully accepted around the country is when we start winning at the ballot.

By Steven T. Jones

The referendum in Maine challenging same-sex marriage is starting to look like it's going to pass, dealing another blow to the national marriage equality movement that San Francisco played such a key role in. It's still close, but the gap is widening with about 70 percent of votes counted as I write this, so it's not looking good.

By Tim Redmond

Or at least, enough to call the election as far as I'm concerned. With about half the votes counted, nothing has changed from my last post : Prop. A wins, of course. But so does Prop. B -- which may go down as the most significant outcome of the evening. It's a vote of confidence in the Board of Supervisors, especially since there was no real Yes campaign and the No campaign played on the supposed mistrust in government, which apparently isn't working in San Francisco.

Prop. C wins, of course. Prop. D loses, no surprise. Prop E was always a winner.

I honestly didn't think Prop. B had a chance. Neither did a lot of its backers. So the district supes are more popular than the mayor or a lot of the established pundits think.

By Steven T. Jones

San Francisco missed an important opportunity to pass new taxes yesterday, and it was an opportunity missed because of a lack of political leadership in this city, which failed to put any tax measures on the ballot. Because there are signs in yesterday’s votes that, while people may not like new taxes, they hate the drastic downsizing of government even more.

As the Chronicle reported, tax measures passed in several Bay Area cities that are far less politically progressive than San Francisco. And in Maine, voters rejected same-sex marriage, but they voted overwhelming against measures to lower the car tax and require voter approval for tax increases (the latest battle in a right-wing crusade that began in California).

Here in San Francisco, where voters don’t like advertising signs or corporate sell-outs, we nonetheless voted to sell naming rights to Candlestick Park. And the nearly 40,000 people who went that way, 57.5 percent of the voters, was almost identical to the number who approved Prop. E, which banned new general advertising on public property.
To me, that’s not a contradiction, but a clear sign that people desperately want local government to have more money, even if it means accepting things they don’t like. Such as signs, or taxes.

Prop. D, which would have allowed billboards along a stretch of Market Street, was another indicator. Even some progressives supported the measure out of desperation to address blight in mid-Market, but it ultimately failed by 10 percentage points. But we don’t need to be that desperate, not if our political leaders start making the argument now for higher taxes on the wealthiest individuals and corporations in the city.

The Right (and that includes all those San Francisco economic conservatives who call themselves “moderates,” such as Gavin Newsom) is wrong. People no longer buy the Reagan mantra “government is the problem,” and perhaps, just maybe, they’re starting to realize that we need to begin to rescue the public sector from these anti-tax zealots.

By Marke B.

Already punished by paisley blouses, sweater vests, turtlenecks, stone-wash, feathered hair, and knee problems. Image via Towleroad.

Even lamer than the title of this post: the annoyingly real results of the Maine same-sex marriage thing. As a Facebook amigo said, voters in Maine are apparently more intolerant than voters in California by a factor of almost 1%, har-dee-har.

Obama or any other Democrats of note (other than Maine's amazingly forthright and kudos-worthy governor) are obviously not gonna side with us on this "at this time." Because having a sizable majority and huge influence is far too risky to do anything but play everything long and slow, obvs. Inching bulldozers are nice, but I'll take a Hail Mary play when it comes to equal rights, Dems.

Pointing fingers -- either at the gay establishment, the Catholic Church, or Obama -- may be considered counter-productive, but it's also a way to start getting our heads around what happened. Striving for an objective look is good, though, too. The one commentator that seems most enlightened to me, as usual, is the invaluable Ta-Nehisi Coates at the Atlantic. As a black, straight man he seems to have a deeper grasp on the issue than many of us do at this emotional moment. Here's a sample:

Conservatives pride themselves on their skepticism, and generally dismiss liberals as soft-headed Utopians. But in so many ways, political conservatism is Utopianism for the powerful. It isn't broadly skeptical of human nature, so much as it's broadly skeptical of people its agents don't particularly like. Hence the sense that Americans are intrinsically "good people," that this country "is the best nation that ever existed in history," that the South is home to "the greatest people that have ever trod the earth," and that the murder of four little girls in Birmingham was the work of a "Communist" or "crazed Negro," which had "set back the cause of white people."

Hence the notion that those voting against gay marriage, are not actually, in the main, motivated by bigotry, but a belief in tradition and family.

I'm angry, sad, frustrated, etc. I hate having to comfort my fiance because some assholes 3,000 miles away told him he's perverted. Sucks! It's important to get together with others at these stupid times and know that we're strong and will prevail. That's the best we can do right now: regroup and win next time. I don't think the state-by-state strategy is worth giving up yet in order to focus on the federal fight, which will be inordinately huger, but that seems to be the sway of things, judging from the title of tonight's rally:

Full Federal Equality Now! Rally and Action for LGBT Rights
Wed/4, 6pm - 9pm
Harvey Milk Plaza
Intersection of Market Street and Castro Street
(More details on Facebook here)

Photos, audio and slideshow by Rebecca Bowe

A tour of Oakland's "Cannabis College," featuring spokesperson Salwa Ibrahim and co-founder Richard Lee.

This week, we report on two efforts currently underway to tax and regulate marijuana -- AB 390, legislation introduced by Assembly member Tom Ammiano that would legalize marijuana and regulate it in similar fashion to alcohol, and Tax Cannabis 2010, a ballot initiative that would give California counties the option to legalize.

Oakland-based Oaksterdam University -- a.k.a. "Cannabis College" -- is the driver behind the ballot initiative. Since OU opened its doors in 2007, about 5,000 students have taken classes to learn the politics and practical skills associated with the medical marijuana industry. Co-founder Richard Lee says he expects to be able to enroll 5,000 students per year once the school moves into new digs at a 30,000 square-foot facility several blocks away.

For now, OU's courses are primarily taught out of a single classroom located nearby the 19th Street Bart station in downtown Oakland. When the Guardian stopped by last week, spokesperson Salwa Ibrahim led us on a tour of OU's classroom, horticulture center, and one of its dispensaries for medical marijuana. We also chatted with Lee about courses at OU and his view on the economic benefits associated with legalization. To check it out, watch the slideshow.

By Tim Redmond

It’s a little weird that Gavin Newsom just disappeared after dropping out of the governor’s race. I had a feeling that he wasn’t going to hold up well under the pressure; he loves celebrity, loves to be on the A-List and loves to hear himself talk, but he can’t take a punch. And getting hit, a lot, is a big part of statewide politics. So I suspect that when he realized that this particular dream was over -- clunk! -- and that in two years, he’s not going to be anything but Gavin Newsom, citizen, he had a little meltdown.

This ought to be cause for concern: Somebody has to run the city for the next two years, and either Newsom is going to buck up, get back to work and try to change the way he does business -- or he’s going to be a bitter lame-duck who can’t get anything accomplished except to go all Nixonian and attack his enemies.

I’m really hoping it’s the former -- and now that he’s off his statewide horse, I think it’s safe to say that most of the supervisors, including the progressives he so disdains, would be more than willing to start working with him. I’d love to see the mayor come back from Hawaii with a clear understanding of what went wrong with his campaign. As we point out in an editorial today:

If the real Gavin Newsom had been anything like the campaign picture his handlers tried to present, he would have been a serious candidate. Newsom the candidate was a leader who brought San Franciscans together to get things accomplished. He was a progressive thinker who created universal health care and an effective budget process with a rainy day fund that prevented teacher layoffs. He was bold enough to challenge federal and state law on same-sex marriage and demand equality for all.

But Newsom the mayor was actually a snippy politician who refused to work with the Board of Supervisors and would never engage his opponents. He was great at press releases but short on accomplishments — universal health care and the rainy day fund were projects put together by Tom Ammiano, one of the supervisors the mayor disdained, who is now a state Assembly member. He refused to take a lead role fighting Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to promote clean energy and public power. And for all his success in moving same-sex marriage forward, he never once managed to bring that kind of progressive energy or policy-making to economic issues. His budget this year was the same as Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget — cuts and fees only. No new taxes.

As a result, the progressives and independent voters in his own town didn't support his campaign — and without the environmentalists, labor, tenants, and progressive elected officials from San Francisco behind him, there was no way he could generate an honest grassroots movement.

I’d love to see the mayor reach out to the folks who have been snubbed all these years. Let’s talk about making the city budget work for everyone -- and if that means some new revenue sources (which lots of other cities seemed to be able to pull off), at least he doesn’t have to worry about running statewide after raising local taxes.

He can take a hard look at where his cuts have really hit and try to work with labor to spread the pain a little better and chop from the top, not just the bottom.

He can become a real, serious clean-energy leader by strongly supporting CCA and taking a visible public role in the campaign against PG&E’s anti-public-power initiative.

The city’s ready for a Gavin, Chapter Two. And he wouldn’t be the first politician to rebound from a defeat, learn his lesson and start his career up again.

Any bets on whether that’s going to happen?

By Ryan Thomas Riddle

The message was clear from the demonstrators and speakers at last night’s (Nov. 4) equality rally at Harvey Milk Plaza: Fuck this, we demand equality right now! Even though two demonstrators were cited, the rally was considered peaceful and a success.

The major source of disappointment was Maine’s voter ban on same-sex marriage , as well as the first anniversary since Proposition 8 passed here in California, repealing marriage equality. However, there were a couple of victories on the equality front. A gay rights measure is leading in Washington and Kalamazoo overwhelmingly passed an anti-discrimination ordinance.

By Tim Redmond

Lots of people are analyzing what happened in Maine, and the fight goes on.

But I think Paul Hogarth, who just got back from Maine, hit on the most important (sadly) point:

The single most important factor in the politics of same-sex marriage is demographics. The younger the voters, the more likely they support same-sex marriage. Maine has the third-oldest population in the country; California has the seventh youngest.

I hate to be dissin' old folks (I'm getting closer and closer to that particular demographic myself) but it's the hard, cold reality: Get young people to vote in large numbers, and we win. In fact, in some ways this debate is already over -- in ten years, passing a same-sex marriage measure will be far easier, and most states will have already taken that step. The demographic train only goes one way.

Which is of limited confort to people who want to get married now, not in ten years -- but it's important to understand, especially when we debate when to go back to the ballot in CA.

I'm for trying again in 2010, with a better-run campaign that doesn't try to hide queer people from the voters. I also recognize that 2012 will be easier than 2010, and 2014 will be easier than 2012, and 2020 will be a slam dunk. So I don't buy the argument that you can only go back to the voters once.

We need to start a statewide effort to register young voters and activate them in huge numbers. They're out there, and thousands upon thousands turn 18 every day. When they go to the polls in larger numbers than their grandparents, then this battle is over.

Gavin Newsom’s long, long political honeymoon is crashing -- and his recent secret escape to Hawaii hasn’t helped him a bit. Even the Chron is now getting a little snippy with the mayor, who showed up back at work today but wouldn’t talk to the press.

Heather Knight goes so far as to bring up the issue Sup. Ross Mirkarimi has been pushing for months:

Ballard wouldn't say whether the SFPD's mayoral security detail accompanied the Newsoms to Hawaii. The cost of guarding the mayor and his family has been a dispute at City Hall recently because the mayor's office and police department won't say how much taxpayer money is used on it.

But we've got to say, if the choice is going to gubernatorial fundraisers or lounging on the beach in Hawaii, we bet his security staff was pleased with the latter.

Think about that sort of press: The public gets the image of the mayor ducking comment, ducking his responsibilities, ducking the whole damn city -- while his bodyguards lounge on the beach on the taxpayer dime.

It probably didn’t go down that way, but still: Lookin’ bad, Gav.

By Tim Redmond

Melissa Griffin thinks Gavin Newsom should run for .... U.S. Senate!

Actually, that’s not really news, since most political observer think it's his only choice at this point (either that, or lose his celebrity status altogether, which I don’t think he could tolerate). Problem is, neither Dianne Feinstein nor Barbara Boxer seems ready to retire anytime soon, so he’ll have to wait a while -- and what the hell will he do in the meantime?

There are all sorts of fun things to speculate on -- Feinstein could decide to run for governor (highly unlikely, unless Jerry Brown decides not to run, which is also highly unlikely, unless Feinstein agreed that if she won, she’d appoint her old friend Jerry to her Senate seat, which would leave Newsom out in the cold.)

Or something could happen to one of the two (Feinstein is 76, Boxer 69), but both are in pretty good health, and it’s ugly for a politician to have to sit around hoping that someone dies so he can have the job.

I don’t think Feinstein’s running for governor, but if she does, she’ll win and choose the next senator, and it won’t be Gavin Newsom. So I’m afraid he’s going to be flailing around for a while (and at a certain point, after he’s termed out as mayor, maybe the Lt. Gov. job won’t look quite so bad).

By Steven T. Jones

In his cover essay for this month’s Harper’s Magazine, “Final Edition: Twilight of the American newspaper ,” writer Richard Rodriguez (an editor at New American Media here in SF) describes the demise of newspapers as a byproduct of our declining sense of a common civic purpose and sense of place.

And by “our,” I and he mean San Francisco, because his essay focuses almost entirely on the San Francisco Chronicle, which was reportedly losing $1 million a day until its multiple waves of layoffs and recently was dropped by a quarter of its readers.

“If the San Francisco Chronicle is near death – and why else would the editors celebrate its 144th anniversary? and why else would the editors devote a week to feature articles on fog? – it is because San Francisco’s sense of itself is perishing,” he wrote.

He makes a good point. The Bay Guardian has long labored to help San Francisco define itself as a city of immigrants and outsiders brought together by shared progressive values and the proud desire to create a unique culture in this strange, dysfunctional country. I’m always amazed to hear “only in San Francisco” get used as an epithet, even by people who live here, for I can think of no higher praise.

By Rebecca Bowe

A couple of news items related to California’s most powerful utility company caught our attention this week.

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. is planning to raise electricity rates for the customers who use less -- in order to slash costs for big-time energy hogs, Mission Local reported this morning.

In an application filed with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on Oct. 14, PG&E explained that typical residential customers paying $74.14 a month would see their average monthly bill rise to $76.63, a 3.4 percent hike. Meanwhile, consumers using 1,500 kilowatt-hours per month could see their average monthly bill drop from $434.98 to $419.66, a discount of 3.5 percent. If approved, the change could take place Jan. 1, 2010 along with a bundle of other rate hikes.

It isn’t the only PG&E request to raise eyebrows recently.

A trio of environmental organizations filed formal letters of protest with the CPUC this week against PG&E’s application for two new gas-fired power plants.

The facilities, which would generate up to 1,300 megawatts of power, would be constructed in Oakley and Antioch, and PG&E expects them to be in operation by 2013 and 2014, respectively. According to the application, the utility would purchase the power generated by one facility, which would be owned and operated by Mirant. It would enter into a deal to purchase and operate the second facility once it was up and running.

By Tim Redmond

Okay, I promise this is my last post on Gavin Newsom today, unless he resigns or something.

By ya gotta love this comment, by a smug and smiling Nathan Ballard, about Newsom's attitude toward the media; "The mayor loves to talk to the media," Ballard proclaims. "Just not today," noted Channel 7's Teresa Garcia.

"Maybe later," Ballard says, slinking away.

Text and video by Sarah Phelan

I shot this footage of driving across the Bay Bridge, the day after the bridge re-reopened the second time this fall.

I’d already filmed this stretch before, the day it reopened for the first time in September. At the time, I wanted to capture what the new approach to San Francisco looks like, and I was extra thankful for the renewed access, which was sorely missed by my family over Labor Day weekend, when my sister-in-law had to be taken by ambulance from Oakland to San Francisco via the San Mateo bridge.

When I shot the bridge the first time, my family was concerned that my sister-in-law didn’t have much time left on this planet, and sadly, they were right: she died Oct. 8, after a long battle with breast cancer.

But I little suspected that I would be filming the bridge re-reopening so soon, or that the newly installed S-curve would be the site of 44 accidents in the ensuing two months. Today’s accident, in which a man driving a truck full of pears lost control and plunged to his death in the Bay, in the wee morning hours, sounds particularly gruesome.

So, maybe it’s worth watching videos like this, just to familiarize yourself with the road before you get behind the wheel. Especially if you have a heavy load on board. (The other major major accident, so far, involved a guy who lost control of a Safeway big rig, scattering frozen pizzas across the top deck and jamming up traffic for hours.)

If you compare the two videos, you’ll see that flashing lights have now been installed, just before you hit the curve, which is serious enough that it makes me want to go, “Wheee!” each time I round it.

I’ve also shot the drive (this time at night) from San Francisco to Oakland, which so far has witnessed far less accidents, possibly because folks have to squeeze through a tunnel before they hit the curve on the lower deck of the bridge.

And please, excuse my music choices and/or background commentaries on these videos. Because as history shows, when you're driving the bridge, you can’t afford to get distracted by anything else, including whatever’s playing on the radio of my music-challenged car.

But I guess you could watch these videos from the comfort and safety of your laptop, while listening to the music or commentary of your own choice. So enjoy--and keep your hands on the wheel, as the song goes, next time you drive the Bay Bridge, and slow down. It really could save your life.

There's a lot of frustration over the failure of the Democratic congress and administration to move on marriage equality and Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell, and it's going to get worse -- I fear that in the wake of the loss in Maine (which was really just a setback on the inevitable the path to equality) will scare Congress even more and convince Rep. Nancy Pelosi to keep anything this "divisive" off the agenda going into next year's midterm elections.

So the progressive blogosphere is trying a new tack: A boycott on donations to the Democratic National Commitee. It's catching on -- the folks at FireDogLake just endorsed it, and I just got off the phone with Markos at DailyKos, and he told me he's signed on (though he hasn't posted on it yet). Dan Savage is on board , no surprise.

Normally these things don't make much of a difference -- but in the past couple of years, donations from readers of blogs like DailyKos have been a significant factor in close Congressional races. So the DNC might actually feel this.

By Tim Redmond

Because where else would you read stuff like this?

Text by Sarah Phelan

My editor Tim Redmond just asked why just every story about the city's sanctuary ordinance seems to start with Ramos?

It's a good question, especially since the Campos legislation would ensure that folks like Ramos would be deported, "not once, but twice," as Campos puts it.

So why does the Ramos red herring keep popping up? Maybe it's because anti-immigrant groups keep mentioning Ramos in an effort to keep the media focused on "security" issues, and not on "child welfare" arguments.

Most arguments around juvenile immigrant policy issues typically split into these two camps--the security camp and the child welfare camp-- as noted in a 2009 Congressional Research Services report on juvenile immigrants by Chad C. Haddal.

In his 28-page report, Haddal observes that the debate over policy questions regarding unaccompanied alien children, or UAC, (as the federal government describes juvenile immigrants who appear to be here without family) "has polarized in recent years between two camps: child welfare advocates and immigration security advocates."

As Haddal observes, tthe child welfare group "has for decades advocated a more refugee-oriented policy toward UAC, arguing that the UAC are largely victims of trafficking, abuse and economic circumstances. Security advocates, by contrast, advocate a more restrictive policy of deportation and repatriation, charging that unauthorized immigration is associated with increased community violence and illicit activities such as gang memberships. The UAC policy question is how to provide for the security of the United States while simultaneously safeguarding the rights and safe treatment of unaccompanied alien children."

What's interesting about Haddal's analysis is that it poses the question of why the "child welfare" side of the argument fell by the wayside in San Francisco, under Mayor Gavin Newsom's leadership.

Could it be because the mayor's criminal justice department was dominated by Republican leaders who had Newsom's ear last summer, just as he was making his doomed entry into the gubernatorial race? And that now that Newsom has let himself be backed into a policy corner, he doesn't seem to be able to acknowledge the child welfare argument, let alone debate it with Campos in a public arena?

By Melanie Ruiz

“Preserve the past – illuminate the present – shape the future.” That's the battle cry of the Freedom Archives, an extensive and inspiring media archive of progressive politics and culture located in the Mission District. This Wednesday, Nov. 11, the Freedom Archives is throwing a 10-year anniversary party at 330 Ritch to honor the imaginative volunteers and interns who have worked so hard to build the archives and keep this important history alive.

There's plenty for FA and the community at large to celebrate. FA director Claude Marks has been acting guardian of the many important voices comprising its collection, including exclusive material from political prisoners, the gay and lesbian rights movement, and Native American struggles. It's recognized as one of the best sources anywhere for material on the history of California's prison system and La Raza.

Finding unfiltered history is, well, like finding a fallacy-free argument from Bill O'Reilly. At FA, you can find Maya Angelou reciting poetry at an Angela Davis benefit, interviews with Dolores Huerta, and coverage of May Day in 1970. Its simple Mission digs are filled with awe-inspiring artifacts of our history. The shelves are stacked with videos, cassettes, and reel-to-reels comprising a treasure trove of speeches, interviews, rallies, poetry, music, and community events.

By Tim Redmond

The golfers-against-snakes fight at Sharp Park has been in the headlines for a while, and KQED held an hour-long discussion on it Nov. 9th.

It gets really confusing and crazy: The city owns the park, although it’s in Pacficia. That means San Francisco taxpayers have to fork over the millions of dollars it costs to operate and maintain the place, while San Mateo County residents get the advantages of it.

It’s also a public golf course -- and while San Francisco has other public courses, Northern California overall lacks places for people who aren’t rich to play the game. It costs about $30 to play at Sharp Park, and well over $100 at the private places.

The endangered San Francisco garter snake and the Califoria red-legged frog live at Sharp Park. The SF Rec-Park Department says we can save both the golf course and the critters

But Brent Plater, executive director of the Wild Equity Institute, which wants to turn the golf course into a hiking park with a major species-restoration element, says the snakes and frogs may be okay where they are right now and where the city wants to protect them -- but when climate change causes a rise in sea level, the fresh-water species will need to retreat upland, and the fairways and greens are in the way.

And Rep. Jackie Speier, whose district includes Sharp Park, says what the hell -- in 50 years, if we don’t slow climate change, San Francisco International Airport will be flooded, too, so let’s not go overboard about the fate of the garter snakes (although she told Forum that she got to hold a San Francisco garter snake the other day, and it was very beautiful).

There’s a point that gets too easily lost here, though. The course loses money; the taxpayers subsidize it. And fixing the seawall and doing all the things the city’s report suggests will cost millions more. “When we’re laying off a third of our rec directors, and shutting down recreation programs in the inner city, why are we spending millions of dollars subsidizing a golf course in San Mateo County?” Mirkarimi asked when I spoke to him this morning.. “If it’s a regional asset, why aren’t we getting any help?”

Well: Guess what? Now that the report is out, and now that Mirkarimi has made a fuss about this and there’s a real movement out there to get rid of the links altogether, the golfers and Rep. Speier are starting to talk about the need for someone other than the city to step up. Although Speier was awfully condescending and harsh on Forum (“San Francisco is the property owner, and property owners need to protect their property”), I thnk she’s got the message. If we’re going to keep Sharp Park for the golfers, then a city that has more than 700 acres of golf courses and about 30 acres of soccer fields, a city that can’t afford to keep rec centers open in neighborhoods where those facilities are lifelines for at-risk kids, ins’t going to be able to foot the entire tab.

And whatever the outcome, getting that on the radar of Congress and San Mateo County has been a public service.

By Steven T. Jones

In the wake of today’s Board of Supervisors vote to override Mayor Gavin Newsom’s veto of requiring due process to play out before city officials turn undocumented juveniles over to federal immigration authorities, City Attorney Dennis Herrera sent an fascinating letter to U.S. Attorney Joseph Russoniello, a conservative who had threatened to bring charges against employees who follow the new law.

Herrera is walking a thin line between Newsom, who unilaterally weakened the city’s long-standing Sanctuary City law last year under pressure from nativists and the San Francisco Chronicle; and supervisors and immigrant rights activists who say the mayor’s new policy violates the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. Newsom has threatened not to enforce the new policy, which becomes law in 30 days, citing the legal threat to city employees.

But Herrera has now attempted to remove that threat by asking Russoniello to withdraw it, and issuing a threat of his own if the holdover Republican attorney doesn’t back down: San Francisco may turn to the courts to overturn Russoniello’s interpretation of federal law, which Herrera calls “broad.”

The important part of the letter states: “Because of the Board of Supervisor’s adoption of the Amendment, and in view of your earlier assertions that certain City officials may have violated federal criminal laws regarding their past handling of certain juvenile arrestees and your seemingly broad interpretation of the harboring statute, I ask that the U.S. Attorney’s Office provide an assurance that if the city proceeds to implement this Amendment in accordance with its terms, City law enforcement officers and employees will not be prosecuted for violating federal criminal laws. I would appreciate your timely response to this letter, preferably by December 7, 2009. If the U.S. Attorney’s Office does not provide us with an adequate assurance that it will not prosecute City officials or employees who would implement the Amendment, my Office may be compelled to explore with City policymakers other options regarding the implementation and enforcement of the Amendment, including the possibility of filing a declaratory relief action in federal court.”

For a complete interpretation of the frightening implications of Newsom’s policy stance, read tomorrow’s Guardian cover story.

By Tim Redmond

It's a good thing these kids weren't in San Francisco -- they might wind up in federal prisons or getting deported.

Text by Sarah Phelan

A newly released forensic report suggests that Hugues de la Plaza (pictured above) was murdered in San Francisco two years ago.

Francois de la Plaza, the father of deceased French-American citizen Hugues de la Plaza, sent me a copy of a report today that forensic pathologist Michael Ferenc prepared for SFPD Deputy Chief David Shinn, concluding that Hugues’s death was a homicide, as his family and the French authorities have long claimed.

“In my opinion, the death of Mr. Hugues de la Plaza is a homicide,” Ferenc writes in his report, which was prepared nine months ago, (and not in Feb. 2008, as the Guardian initially claimed, thanks to a typo on the report itself). Curiously, the SFPD has never publicized Ferenc's findings, even though it has divulged preliminary findings from an as yet unpublished LAPD report, which allegedly supports the SF Medical Examiner's finding that the cause of death was "undeterminable."

Ferenc notes that SFPD Inspector Casillas gave him, “an excellent overview of the case" when he met with him and his colleagues," earlier this year.

" It was very thorough and detailed," Ferenc writes.

In his report, he summarizes several key points that support his murder conclusion, (based on his review of the SFPD’s crime scene photos, video and autopsy report.), before inferring, Sherlock Holmes-style, the following sequence of events:

“Mr. De La Plaza returned home from nightclubbing around 0200 hours and entered his residence,” Ferenc states. “There he ate some food and apparently made phone calls and utilized his computer (approximately during the next half hour based upon Inspector Casillas’s investigation). For some reason(s) he exited his apartment ( or at least stepped outside to answered his door). Either upon exiting or at his subsequent return, an assailant(s), who was(were) most likely positioned on the lower landing of the stair case, stabbed Mr. De La Plaza while he was on the lower steps. The victim retreated inside the apartment and the assailant(s) probably did not follow inside. The victim went to the kitchen and returned to the front room bleeding profusely all the time. He soon collapsed from hemorrhagic shock in the front room where he was found.”

To support his conclusions, Ferenc highlights the following key points:

By Tim Redmond

Newspapers that subscribe to wire services like AP have the right to condense, edit, and pretty much use the material any way they want. The results can be telling.

Witness the AP story that ran today on Jerry Brown's campaign for governor.

You can read what appears to be the full, unedtied version here.

Then there's the version that ran in the print edition of the Examiner. You can find that by going here and paging through to p. 17.

I got an interesting email from h. brown on the two stories. His analysis:

What was cut:

"Obama [won] the biggest margin of victory in a
California presidential election since at least
WW II."

Praise for Brown:

"opening government for women and minorities"

"Democratic party becoming increasingly diverse"

[The original story] said that Brown is: "famously independent"

The Examiner editors changed it to:

"famously erratic personality and propensity
for outlandish statements"

Again: Nothing out of the ordinary here at all, editors do this stuff every day. But it's an interesting window into how media bias shows up in the most subtle little ways.

By Tim Redmond

Okay, I promise this is the last item about Jerry Brown today (two's plenty enough).

The CA Republican Party has released an attack on on the attorney general, trying to make a huge deal out of the secret taping of reporters.

I'm not much in favor of secret taping of anyone, although some leading thinkers on First Amendment issues aren't sure this is such a huge deal. Peter Scheer at the California First Amendment Coalition, for example, argues that

Talking to a reporter on the phone (or in person) is about as open and nonconfidential an exchange as sitting for a live television interview or typing into a blog on a public, unrestricted website. The whole point of a conversation with a print journalist is to provide her with information to be communicated to her paper’s entire readership. A genuinely confidential communication with a reporter is the rare exception, not the rule.

But that's beside the point. Carla Marinucci at the Chron says

Ouch. The ad pounds Jerry in the same way that Jerry's GOP guv rivals and other GOPpers did earlier this week: Point out that ordering a self-investigation will fail you in Conflict of Interest 101 every time.

But really, is this the best the GOP can do? There are so many things to criticize about Jerry Brown, and we'll be hearing them over and over all next year. This one just seems kind of lame. I think this whole "scandal" is over, and nobody really cares anymore.

Text and video by Sarah Phelan

Abigail Trillin reads a letter from an immigrant mother who wants to meet Newsom in person and hear him explain why he supports a policy that has led to her son being needlessly placed in a federal detention facility in Oregon

As the father of a newborn, Mayor Gavin Newsom is doubtless having sleepless nights and tiring days, as he learns to change diapers, burp and even bathe his young daughter, in between his duties as San Francisco’s CEO.

Presumably, he’s already gained the fiercely protective perspective of a parent--a point of view that could help him realize why it would be humane to meet with the parents of immigrant teens who have been whisked out of the city and away to federal detention facilities in other states, thanks to a policy that Newsom ordered last year.

One such mother wrote a letter requesting a meeting with the mayor to discuss why her son is sitting in a federal detention facility in Oregon, even though the SF District Attorney has dismissed all the charges in his case.

Abigail Trillin, staff attorney with Legal Services for Children, read that letter aloud at City Hall this week, shortly after the Board voted to override Newsom’s veto of amendments to the sanctuary policy (and you can listen to it, by clicking on the video above.)

The Board’s amendments seek to ensure that teens who haven’t done anything wrong aren’t turned over to the feds for possible deportation. The amendments would therefore also ensure that families aren’t needlessly put through hell, just because someone accuses their kids of doing something they never did.

But Newsom has said- indirectly through his spokespeople--that he plans to ignore the Board's amendments, claiming that his hands are tied by federal law.

The Board believes otherwise and currently a nasty legal battle seems eminent.

In the meantime, families of immigrant children in San Francisco are left worrying if their kid is going to be the next child to be referred to the feds and disappeared to a detention facility in Oregon or Miami or Indiana or wherever for deportation to a country they never knew for a crime they never did.

So if Newsom, as a mayor and a parent, believes in his policy, then surely he is willing to defend and explain it to those directly impacted by his decisions.

Because this isn't a game, or another piece of political theater. It's a case of immigrant parents desperately fighting to protect their kids from needless harm, which could include death at the border or being recruited into a gang.

Now, folks tell me stuff like, well, these parents should make sure their kids don't get into trouble in the first place.
But the truth is that some of these kids didn't get into trouble in the first place. Or not into trouble that was so serious that it warranted being referred to the feds. And that's why their mothers have a problem with Newsom's current policy and want him to amend it, as he has been directed, or at the very least explain it, as mayor of San Francisco, to them in person.

f

By Marke B.

Sametová revoluce - předchozí demonstrace 1988-1989, záběry jednotlivců -- scenes from demonstrations in Prague, 1988-1989

I spent many hours of my life standing in those crowds, in Warsaw, Budapest, Berlin, and Prague; their behavior was both inspiring and mysterious. What had moved these individual men and women to come out on the streets, especially in the early days, when it was not self-evidently safe to do so? What swayed them as a crowd? Who, in Prague, was the first to take a key ring out of his or her pocket, hold the keys aloft, and shake them—an action that, copied by 300,000 people, produced the most amazing sound, like massed Chinese bells?

So writes European historian Timothy Garton Ash in "1989!" -- part one of his wonderfully cogent reckoning of the history of the so-called end of the cold war published in the New York Review of Books this month. (Part two, "Velvet Revolution: The Prospects," to be published next month, just became available online.) It's the 20th anniversary of those immense events, including the fall of the Berlin Wall, so it's time to size up what happened and how we think of it all, I guess.

Garton Ash takes a long and involved look at how scholars have weighed the events of 1988-1989 -- and 1980-1981 in Poland -- from the theory that a bankrupt East Germany had no choice but to dissolve itself, as it had become too much in debt to the West, to the hilariously ludicrous notion that Reagan tore down the Berlin Wall himself, brick by brick, shirtless, in jodhpurs and suspenders, the Brill Creme streaming in manly rivulets down his unvacillating brow. Of course, new archival information is becoming available all the time, revealing shocking new things. (In one stunning instance we're reminded that Dick Cheney was a troglodyte long before Iraq. As President George H.W. Bush's Defense Secretary he advised that all of Glasnost, then politically melting an entire continent of policies, "may be a temporary aberration in the behavior of our foremost adversary." He needs enemies to live.)

In any case, Garton Ash's major recommendation is that historians approach the "fall of communism" less from the top down, digging through acreages of bureaucratic documents, and more from the bottom up -- a sort of historical revitalization of crowd psychology, paying closer attention to the participation of the people within the churning movement toward democracy itself. (I wonder what he thinks of this.) So I searched around and found the video above, which really does drive home the huge cajones and audacity of hope, not to mention the sheer higglety-piggletyness, among those Velvet Revolutionaries.

(I was in Berlin in the summer of 1988 -- and was almost jailed on the Eastern side for importing homosexual pornography, i.e. a Damron Gay Europe travel guide with a picture of a tacky guy with a Speedo on the cover, until they realized I was under 18 and would have too many legal problems -- and it really seemed like East Germans were roiling with angst that summer, maybe more than usual. At least, they weren't the stony-faced apolitical drones that I'd been led to believe by the American media. Hindsight, of course, is 20/20 -- something Garton Ash's essays handily take on. Really, my main observation was probably that East German dudes were way hotter than the West German ones, who were undergoing some sort of ghastly hippie fashion revival at the time.)

One more money quote from "1989!":

The end of communism in Europe brought the most paradoxical realization of a communist dream. Poland in 1980–1981 saw a workers' revolution—but it was against a so-called workers' state. Communists dreamed of proletarian internationalism spreading revolution from country to country; in 1989–1991, revolution did finally spread from country to country, with the effect of dismantling communism.

Text by Sarah Phelan
For those brave folks who plan to read the newly released six-volume EIR for Lennar’s proposed redevelopment of the 770-acre Hunters Point Shipyard/Candlestick Point site, the holiday season promises to be a busy time.

First, you need to actually find the report, which is buried over at the San Francisco Planning Commission’s site. To help you find your way there, click here.

Nex, you need to figure out when you’ll have time to read it before two public hearing which are scheduled for Dec. 15 & 17—just ten and eight shopping days before Christmas.

And then, if you plan to make a difference, you’ll also need to figure out when you’ll have time to write and submit public comments, which will be accepted until Dec. 28 (three days after Christmas, three days before New Year)

Now, maybe this timing will work marvelously, what with the economy in the shitter, and no one having money to spend on the holidays, and more and more people unemployed and therefore in possession of the time needed to read, digest and comment on all six of these crucial tomes.

Or could it be that most people won’t be doing any of this, and especially not during and in between the biggest celebrations –in terms of family gatherings and feasts?

To motivate y’all to sit up and start tracking this plan, which promises to majorly impact the city’s southeast, may I point you to a Nov. 5 presentation on the proposed plan that was made before the San Francisco Planning Commission last week, in anticipation of the EIR’s release.
(You can watch it or read the captions, depending on your mood). in anticipation of the EIR’s release, by clicking on the Nov. 5 links listed at the Planning Commission's site.)

What struck me when I watched it was the overall vagueness, on the part of city officials, when it came to explaining the plans, and the desperation of community members, on the one hand, to get jobs, and, on the other, to get the shipyard thoroughly cleaned up (and not just cleaned up to Lennar’s “intended use”) and to get Lennar to keep its promises, be they to monitor the dust, or build 32 percent affordable housing, or create thousands of permanent jobs. Enjoy.

By Rebecca Bowe

Yesterday, around 4 p.m., 22 union members rushed into the mayor’s office (the plush reception area on the other side of those stately double doors) and demanded to meet with Mayor Gavin Newsom. Immediately blocked by security from continuing all the way to the mayor, they vowed to wait -- and remained there for about two hours. The protesters were there as representatives or supporters of SEIU Local 1021, which has launched a months-long fight against Newsom in the wake of layoffs and deep salary cuts in the Department of Public Health inflicted by city budget cuts.

In the City Hall corridor just outside the mayor’s office, scores of other SEIU members gathered in support of those inside the reception area. Chants, cheers, and the refrain from Bob Marley’s “Get Up, Stand Up” could be heard from outside. The SEIU members inside, meanwhile, circled up and prepared to be arrested. Meanwhile, the clerks working in the reception area continued diligently working away at their desks. (Each of the mayoral staffers declined to comment. At one point, mayoral spokesman Nathan Ballard walked through the room, and the union members hollered at him to please ask the mayor to show some leadership. "Will do," he said with a smile, and disappeared behind a door.)

The mayor never showed. Nor did any clash take place between the union members and the plainclothes security officers who were coolly guarding the doors leading out to the corridor and back to the mayor’s actual office. The union members stayed until approximately 6:15 p.m., chanting, singing, delivering impromptu speeches, and resolving that they would keep up the fight. Here’s what it was like in there.

They finally negotiated an exit with the security officers, and joined the others outside the doors.

Then, they flooded into the street outside City Hall with the other workers and proceeded to circle around the intersection of Polk and McAllister. Sup. Chris Daly joined them and thanked them for their work, vowing to do what he could to restore the cuts.

At Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting, supervisors voted seven to four to dip into the General Fund reserve to restore the jobs of certified nursing assistants and unit clerks in the city’s Department of Public Health.

But after it was announced that the ordinance had passed on first reading, and the SEIU workers who’d packed the Board Chambers let out a celebratory whoop, some one pointed out that eight votes were needed for approval. The measure had actually failed -- and the disappointment in the room was palpable.

By Tim Redmond

John Ross, author, poet, civic honoree and longtime Bay Guardian Mexico City correspondent, will be at Modern Times Nov. 18th to read from his new book, El Monstruo.

John is a San Francisco treasure, and his events are not to be missed. Here's the scoop:

SAN FRANCISCO (Nov. 2nd) - Poet/author/journalist/ and globe-trotting troublemaker John Ross will present his latest cult classic "El Monstruo - Dread & Redemption In Mexico City" (Nation Books) on Wednesday, November 18th at Modern Times Bookstore, 888 Valencia Street in San Francisco's Mission District beginning at 7:00 PM.

"El Monstruo" ("The Monster") tells the sordid tale of Mexico City, the most contaminated, corrupt, crime-ridden, and conflictive megalopolis in the Americas, where Ross has lived for the past quarter of a century. The narrative spans no less than 50,000,000 years, beginning way back in the Paleocene and time traveling all the way to last spring's swine flu panic.

"John Ross sings a lusty corrido about a great betrayed city" writes Mike Davis, author of "City Of Quartz" and "Planet Of Slums." "Ross has fashioned a stirring love letter and cautionary tale about his beloved Mexico City," adds Kirkus Reviews.

John Ross is the author of ten books of fiction and non-fiction and an equal number of poetry chapbooks, the most recent of which is "Bomba!" (Calaca de Pelon, Mexico City.) "Iraqigirl", a diary of a teenager coming of age under U.S. occupation that Ross developed and edited was published by Haymarket this July. John Ross is the winner of the American Civil Liberties Union's Upton Sinclair Prize (The "Uppie") for his 2005 phantasmagorical autobiography "Murdered By Capitalism - 150 Years of Life & Death On The American Left" and the 1995 American Book Award for "Rebellion From the Roots", the first published account of the Zapatista rebellion in Chiapas that the author has accompanied from its earliest hour and about which he has written four books.

In addition to Modern Times, John Ross will present "El Monstruo" at Northtown Books, 957 Street in Arcata California on Friday the 13th at 7 PM and will bring the Monster to the UC Berkeley campus when he speaks at the Center for Latino Policy Research, 2547 Channing Way, on MonsY, November 30th at Noon.

In recognition for his decades-long accomplishments as an activist and writer, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors recently declared May 12th "John Ross Day."

Declaring that San Francisco has become "a sanctuary city for the rich," Ross declined the "honor."

By Tim Redmond

New London, Connecticut, became famous a few years back for seizing the homes of dozens of families to make way for a commercial development by the pharma giant Pfizer. Now, a major Supreme Court case later, the project has gone forward, the houses have been demolished -- and now Pfizer, after years of tax breaks and tens of millions of dollars in public subsidies, is bailing on the whole thing.

It was on odd Supreme Court case, with Justice Clarence Thomas, of all people, making the case against a private company getting tax benefits. But it's hard to argue with the results -- this was a major disaster. And there's a lesson here: If governments put too much faith and hope in the promises of big business to save their economies, they're going to be badly disappointed.

Lennar Corp. isn't demolishing any houses in Bayview/Hunters Point, but the construction giant will completely transform that area -- and then what? Suppose Lennar goes broke halfway through? San Francisco's handing over a lot of its future to one company that can't be trusted. Not so smart, I think

By Tim Redmond

Shortly after the new supervisors were elected last fall, Sup. Sophie Maxwell came by the Bay Guardian to talk about the board presidency. She was a candidate, and she knew she needed progressive support to get the job. So she told us about her political views and accomplishments and asked why we didn't consider her a "progressive."

Well, we've had some (respectful) disagreements with Sup. Maxwell over redevelopment and Home Depot. But what really concerned us, then and now, was whether Maxwell was willing to defy the mayor and take a hard line on city budget issues.

And now comes a major test.

The progressives on the board -- along with Sup. Bevan Dufty, who is often a more moderate vote -- are pushing to force the mayor to rescind the layoffs of 500 front-line health-care workers.

The nurses aides and clerical workers are almost all people of color, mostly women, and mostly making less than $50,000 a year. Sup. John Avalos has proposed that the city take $7 million out of reserves to save their jobs. That’s a temporary fix -- in the long run, San Francisco needs to raise taxes to get some more revenue in, or at least do layoffs more equitably.

The Avalos legislation requires eight votes. Union activists say Maxwell appeared to be on their side last week, but after meeting with the mayor’s chief of staff, Steve Kawa, she voted against the measure Nov. 10th. That left it one vote short of passage.

It also sparked a fight between Maxwell and Sup. Chris Daly, which isn’t doing anyone any good.

But it’s not over. The Avalos bill is back in committee, and will come before the board again in the next two weeks. And Maxwell has to face a tough decision.

The argument that there’s no money available to save these jobs doesn’t make sense to me. The city’s likely to receive $33 million in extra public health money next year through a state bill known as AB 1383.

Besides, the entire city budget is out of whack already; revenue isn’t up to expectations and the deficit is growing for next year, so the mayor could (and should) make some mid-year changes -- like layoffs at the top.

I haven’t been able to reach Maxwell by phone. But this one’s going to go down as a litmus test: When it comes to saving the jobs of working-class people of color, or siding with the mayor, where will she come down?

It’s clear where all the progressives on the board are. And that’s where Maxwell should be.

By Tim Redmond

The missing mayor is still missing -- and he's not even talking to the Chron reporters or to C.W. Nevius. He did, however, agree to an interview with the Examiner's Ken Garcia -- and for a guy who was the only one allowed to talk to the mayor since his campaign for governor collapsed and he fled the city, Garcia completely failed to ask any serious questions. Here's the entire report on Garcia's hard-hitting interview:

Besides, Newsom told me, “I love this town and I love this job, and I still have a few years left to do some of the things I want to.”

As for ducking from the press, he said the whole idea is “delusional.”

“I’ve been out doing events. I just haven’t had a news conference,’’ Newsom said.

Man, with Ken Garcia on the case, we have nothing to fear.

By Steven T. Jones

The Mayor’s Office has announced the departure of press secretary Nathan Ballard, a glib and caustic communicator who unnecessarily sowed division with members of the Board of Supervisors and various community groups. The question now is whether this represents an impending change in tone for the lame-duck mayor.

While this afternoon’s press release makes the split sound amicable, it’s hard to know what’s actually going on in this increasingly squirrely administration. But Mayor Gavin Newsom’s quote in the release is telling: “Nathan Ballard is unflappable, smart and a fierce advocate.”

I would agree with each of those adjectives, but it was the last one that really characterized his approach and its contribution to the bunker mentality that the Newsom Administration has developed over the last few years, with its Nixonian penchant to treat all potential opponents as enemies to be publicly scorned and belittled.

By Tim Redmond

In a move that's unprecedented in modern San Francisco history, city controller Ben Rosenfield appears poised to try to block the Board of Supervisors from approving a $7 million supplemental budget appropriation to prevent 500 layoffs of frontline health department workers.

It's the latest twist in a convoluted battle that pits SEIU Local 1021 and the progressives on the board against the mayor, who wants to lay off nurses aides and clerical workers.

In a budgetmessage posted today, Rosenfield says that the city is running $53 million in the red, and that "until this shortfall is addressed, the Controller's Office will not be able to certify funds from the General Fund Reserve for other appropriations."

Rosenfield, a Newsom appointee, is apparently relying on a very old City Charter section that looks like this:

S.F. Charter Sec. 9.113 (d) "General Fiscal Provisions"

No ordinance or resolution for the expenditure of money, except the
annual appropriation ordinance, shall be passed by the Board of
Supervisors unless the Controller first certifies to the Board that
there is a sufficient unencumbered balance in a fund that may legally be
used for such proposed expenditure, and that, in the judgment of the
Controller, revenues as anticipated in the appropriation ordinance for
such fiscal year and properly applicable to meet such proposed
expenditures will be available in the treasury in sufficient amount to
meet the same as it becomes due.

But in my 25 years of covering City Hall, I have never once seen this happen. There have been bad budget deficits before, and supplemental appropriations, and the controller has never told the supervisors that they can't spend reserve money.

"About the only thing Rosenfield and I agree on is that this has never been done before," Sup. Chris Daly told me this evening.

The controller's report notes that several city departments are running over budget -- but interestingly, Human Services and Public Health, the targets of the layoffs, are running a surplus of $8.1 million (exactly what the supervisors want to spend).

Among those departments facing shortfalls: The Sheriff's Office, which is in the red because of "an increase in jail population" -- possibly due to the new police chief's crackdown on drug dealing in the Tenderloin.

I couldn't reach Rosenfield tonight, but Daly notes that the same legislation was before the board last week, and Rosenfield didn't object. "So he's already certified it," Daly said. "And I'm not sure how he can decertify it now."

I'm not going to argue that the city has money to burn, but there are always mid-year budget changes in bad times. The supes and the mayor are going to have to make some budget adjustments. But there's also unanticipated money coming in -- for example, San Francisco stands to get about $33 million in federal stimulus money for the Department of Public Health in April, and that funding will be retroactive to the previous year. So this year's shortfall will actually be $33 million less.

Tina Johnson, a legislative affairs staffer for the state Department of Health Care Services, confirmed the near-certain availability of that money in a Nov. 16th letter to state Sen. Leland Yee.

In any other year, I suspect the controller would follow the normal practice of informing the mayor and the supes that the budget was out of line (as it is, in one way or another, almost every year) and then allow them to come up with some mid-year corrections. But this battle between Local 1021 and the mayor has gotten ugly, and I'm sure there was pressure on Rosenfield.

Look for a showdown at the board meeting tomorrow (Nov. 17). Daly told me that whatever Rosenfield says, "we're going to have a vote on this."

By Tim Redmond

Hillary Clinton never did this!

I think it’s pretty clear now that Jerry Brown’s press office made a huge mistake in secretly recording conversations with reporters. (For starters, why do it in secret? I’ve done plenty of interviews where I turned on the tape recorder and the politician’s press secretary said, hey, I’m going to record this, too, just so we have a copy and we can be sure you’re report is accurate. Which is always fine with me, and I’m sure would have been fine with the reporters in this case.)

But one good thing came out of it: We have the full transcripts of some fascinating interviews.

Joe Matthews at Foxandhoundsdaily has posted the full 93-page pdf here.

I agree with Matthews -- the best interview is the one with AP reporter Beth Fouhy. It shows the good and the bad side of Jerry Brown in full glory, more than any summary or even detailed profile could. It also shows why the progressives need to be prepared to really push Brown on some critical issues -- because whatever he was in the 1970s, he’s not acting like a progressive today.

Some of the remarkable details from the interview:

Fouhy: I think you make a really good point. Hillary [Clinton] had never been a candidate.

JB: She doesn’t have the scope. She didn’t work with Mother Theresa. She didn’t spend six months working in a Zen Buddhism. She didn’t take Linda Ronstadt to Africa. She didn’t have her own astronaut. I had Rusty Triker (sic), an astronaut. I put him on the state energy commission. There is a certain texture to who I am, and it’s unique, so I don’t know how you compare it.

JB: I’d like to do something about the prisons. They’re very expensive and have a gross inefficiency, the recidivism rate in California prisons is the highest in the country. What that means is that they’re not working. They keep people off the street, but when they return them, they’re as bad as when they went in, if not worse.

JB: The last time there was real creativity in the state was when I was governor. We created the California Conservation Corp., made the state the leader in wind energy, that was the time when these new innovations in Silicon Valley came along. I brought people into government. We protected the wild and scenic rivers. In fact, people stigmatized, they said there were too many new ideas.

JB: Is the past yesterday? Or ten years from today?

Fouhy: Do you think that Prop. 13 needs to go away?

JB: The real estate taxes have grown since Prop. 13 dramatically. Because property has shifted. Property shits, the tax rate goes up to the current assessed value. .... 13 has centralized decision making in state government and it may be that local government needs more authority to make decisions and I think that’s worth looking at.

So Brown at least gets the point on the state prisons -- but he pulls a world-class duck on Prop. 13. He talks about creativity in government, and it’s true -- back in his first term, the state did all sorts of cool stuff. But that was when Brown was willing to take risks. Now he’s sounding too much like a grump who doesn’t think anything can really change -- witness his battle with John Burton, in which he proclaimed that single-payer “is never going to happen.”

The old Jerry Brown would never have used that term.

So he’s got his old weird (sometimes lovable) spacy-ness, but not so much of the bold vision. Not a great combo.

By Steven T. Jones

Controversial crime czar Kevin Ryan has resigned from Mayor Gavin Newsom’s administration, the Examiner is reporting, the second high-profile defection in as many days.

While this could be a sign of a sinking political ship, both departures are big improvements from a progressive perspective. Ryan, a Republican who was forced from his US Attorney’s post for incompetence, has pulled Newsom in a conservative direction on issues ranging from medical marijuana policy to municipal ID cards to public surveillance.

Most recently, Ryan advised the mayor to adopt a harshly nativist policy change to the city’s sanctuary city policy, with Newsom refusing to enforce a newly adopted city law requiring due process to play out before city officials turn juveniles over to federal immigration authorities – a stance Newsom took with no public input and after refusing to meet with immigrant families or activists.

The Newsom Administration now appears to be in full meltdown mode, with Newsom acting bizarrely and refusing to hold announced public events or answer media inquiries. But as I wrote yesterday upon the resignation of press secretary Nathan Ballard, this could be an opportunity for Newsom to reinvent himself and engage with city constituencies that he has scorned, if only he had the will to do so.

By Rebecca Bowe

The ongoing saga of budget cuts affecting a majority of people of color and women in the city’s Department of Public Health took yet another twist this afternoon.

For now, the Budget & Finance Committee has voted to restore the cuts, but it won’t be heard by the full Board of Supervisors until next Tuesday, when eight votes will still be needed to pass the $8 million supplemental appropriation. Meanwhile, in the wake of the city controller’s dramatic pronouncement yesterday that the Board wasn’t allowed to take anything out of the General Fund reserve, Sup. Chris Daly had to do some fancy footwork to come up with a new way to restore the cuts.

At a special meeting of the Budget & Finance Committee this afternoon, Supervisors voted to restore the cuts -- but since City Controller Ben Rosenfield said he was unable to certify a spending decision that would draw approximately $8 million from the General Fund reserve, Supervisors voted to dip into the $45 million that the Board placed on reserve across major city departments at the 11th hour of budget deliberations back in July. In the Department of Public Health, it represents about $11.9 million in salaries and benefits. Since drawing from this pot of money wouldn’t render the budget out of balance, the city controller can sign off on it as a legitimate move.

The idea to use the DPH reserve, instead of General Fund reserve dollars, was suggested by Sup. Chris Daly after City Controller Ben Rosenfield announced yesterday afternoon that he would not allow the Board to vote on a supplemental appropriation that spent General Fund reserve dollars because the city is projected to be in dire straits financially. “The previously appropriated spending no longer appears to be supportable,” Rosenfield told the Supervisors this afternoon. “The difference exceeds the value of the General Fund reserve.”

The city controller has never barred the Board from taking a vote on a supplemental appropriation due to a budget deficit. But Rosenfield said this afternoon that in the handful of instances when the controller has had to notify the city of a projected budgetary shortfall, this was the first time that a vote was pending on a supplemental appropriation.

By Steven T. Jones

The Westin St. Francis Hotel on Union Square this morning became the latest target for the striking hotel workers of UNITE-HERE Local 2, which has been springing three-day strikes on local hotels. As we reported in today’s Guardian, the union’s contract expired back in August and the hotel chains are trying to force benefit concessions and increased health care costs on their workers.

The union urged guests of the St. Francis to observe the picket line that has gone up and to find other accommodations when staying in San Francisco, even offering to help with that process through its website. This strike will end by the first shift on Saturday morning.

Five years ago during the last labor standoff between hotel workers and management, Mayor Gavin Newsom walked the picket line in front of the St. Francis after hotels refused his request to end their lockout of employees, which affected almost every major hotel in town.

Text and photos by Sarah Phelan

How much rope has the Obama administration given the US Attorney for Northern California Joe Russoniello (center) when it comes to prosecuting probation officers around the city's sanctuary policy?
-

The resignation of Gavin Newsom’s criminal justice director Kevin Ryan and his mayoral spokesperson Nathan Ballard
could give the mayor the chance to revisit his policy towards juvenile immigrants, smoke out US Attorney for Northern California Joe Russoniello over his claims that not referring kids at the moment of arrest is tantamount to “harboring," and allow Newsom to connect with seriously alienated members of the city's immigrant community.

I say “could” because the mayor is notorious for his snippy, thumb-in-yer-face attitude towards anyone that questions his policies.

But I also say “could” because records show the mayor reaffirming his commitment to the city’s original sanctuary policy in April 2008—just days before Ryan, Ballard and Russoniello began arguing for a policy shift.

By Steven T. Jones

Bicyclists and city officials are anxiously awaiting word from Superior Court Judge Peter Busch on whether he will lift the three-year-old court injunction against any bike-related improvements to the city. He’s now considering recent filings by the city and anti-bike blogger Rob Anderson’s attorney, Mary Miles, and could issue his ruling at any time.

At issue is whether the environmental impact report on the San Francisco Bicycle Plan, which the city completed early last summer, is adequate and addresses the concerns that led to the injunction. The far-reaching plan was originally approved with no EIR. A full hearing of the EIR’s adequacy won’t happen untill next year, but the city wants to be able to start making some improvements now.

Activists and city officials have long been frustrated with the breadth of the injunction, which bans all projects mentioned in the bike plan, even simple bike racks and sharrow markings (which indicate the safest area for bikes to ride on shared roadways), as well as critical safety features like new bike lanes on dangerous streets. And they’re hopeful that Judge Busch will issue at least a partial lifting of the injunction.

By Tim Redmond

Arnold isn't running again -- for anything. Or so he says. After eating some Wienerschnitzel.

By Tim Redmond

It's gotten surprisingly little press (outside of the NY Times), but the decision by Russell Athletic to rehire 1,200 workers in Honduras who had been thrown out of work when the company closed a factory in the wake of a union-organizing effort is a very big deal.

It's easy to criticize student activists; they're too idealistic, they're just kids who don't understand the real world, nobody listens to them anyway, or maybe (as one of my professors at Wesleyan once said about anti-apartheid activists) they just don't have enough homework.

But the folks at United Students Against Sweatshopsnot only took on a good cause -- they developed a brilliant strategy that actually worked. Targeting Russell Athletic made perfect sense for college students: Russell makes millions of dollars off university licensing deals. So students at hundreds of college campuses could work locally, demanding that their school cut its ties with Russell until it settled with the union in Honduras.

The local pressure worked. More than 80 colleges and universities, including Harvard, NYU and Stanford, agreed to cut off the deals that allowed Russell to use their logos on sportswear -- and that convinced Russell to turn 180 degrees around and accept the union in Honduras.

"This is the culmination of 12 years of student organizing around this issue," Shaun Martinez, a 2008 graduate of USC and a national staff organizer for USAS, told me. "We have never before been able to reverse a decision when a company closed a factory to stop union organizing efforts."

The student group was able to leverage its success with colleges and universities to put pressure on Russell's other major partners -- like the NBA -- and when NBA officials started hearing the message, Russell had no choice but to settle.

So chalk one up to the students; they've won a major victory not just for organized labor and the anti-sweatshop movement but for campus organizing everywhere.

By Tim Redmond

Calitics reports this morning that the California Nurses Association is preparing a split-roll ballot initiative for 2010. The outline of the measure looks good, both in terms of impact (billions and billions in extra tax revenue for local government) and politics (a clear message to homeowners that this won't raise their taxes). As Robert Cruickshank notes, the proposals would

• Tax commercial property at fair market value, and frequently reassess property taxes at fair market value (instead of locking in a value and rate, as Prop 13 currently does). The main difference between the two initiatives is how that reassessment is accomplished.

• Provide a small business exclusion of up to $1 million

• Double homeowners' exemption from $7,000 to $14,000 (as a sweetener to voters)

It's a clever approach, one that almost certainly polls well with voters, since the initiatives offer tax relief for residential owners and small businesses - making it crystal clear, at least in the initiative language, that this is NOT an attack on the sacred cow of residential property protections offered in Prop 13.

CNA has the money and the clout to get this going, and it could become one of the most important campaigns of the year. If the group goes forward -- and I hope that happens -- wafflers like Jerry Brown will have to take a stand, and tell us whether they're with big business and commercial landlords or with the millions of Californians who are getting screwed by an unfair tax system and deep cuts in public services.

By Steven T. Jones

There are facts and there are lies. And the fact is Mayor Gavin Newsom has been lying about whether he’s doing his job these days, a role that requires more than just hiding in his office or sweeping the streets. As the Chronicle piles on our absentee mayor for refusing to announce his schedule or talk to the press, Newsom has fired back, calling the reports “lies” and saying journalists are “delusional.”

But those descriptors are better applied to the mayor’s own behavior and outlook. The City Charter requires the mayor to announce his daily schedule. He’s never been good at showing he actually works a full day, but since his gubernatorial campaign tanked, he hasn’t announced any events (check for yourself at this site that the mayor is required to keep).

Apparently, he finally talked to reporters this afternoon, and they dutifully quoted his claim to have attended 62 events since his flameout – despite a dearth of evidence supporting that. Whatever. The reality is that Mr. Sensitive can’t pout for long, not without violating the law and breaking the public trust.

For once, I actually agree with the Chron's Chuck Nevius: Do your job, Mr. Mayor, or resign.

Text and photos by Sarah Phelan

Mayor Gavin Newsom began speaking to reporters today, but not before members of the press were ejected from the plush velvety seats of Herbst Theater when the mayor, who was running half an hour late, arrived at the War Memorial Veterans Building to deliver his latest budget instructions.

By Tim Redmond

The mayor is speaking to the press again. Oh goodie.

First, Hank Plante of KCBS TV gets a sit-down interview that's stunning in its lack of substance. Newsom gets all pissy and defensive about his trip to Hawaii, says he doesn't read the newspapers and complains about inaccurate reporting without ever saying what's inaccurate. (I like Brock' suggestion at sfist:

Why couldn't Newsom tell CBS 5's Hank Plante, "Yeah, I took off to Hawaii. And what, hooker? Somebody hold my earrings."

Then when Plante finally starts asking about the budget deficit, the mayor totally ducks and won't say anything except that it's going to be a lot of work to resolve.

Then the mayor's office kicks the press out of a department head briefing on the budget and follows it up with some brief public remarks that show:

1. Newsom would much rather downplay this and say it's no big deal, and

2. There's no serious talk about raising new revenues (except from selling off the city's rental housing stock and creating lots of new condominiums) and

3. Every department is being asked to cut 20 percent and prepare for as much as 30 percent cuts -- but that's going to mean really, really ugly decisions that Newsom can't possibly make. For example, the Sheriff can only cut 20 percent by letting people out of jail -- many of them the same people who Newsom's new police chief, George Gascon, just put in jail with his much-lauded Tenderloin busts. Then the Tenderloin crackdown will become a joke, because nobody arrested will actually do any jail time, because the city can't afford to lock them up. Oh, and there won't be enough cops to arrest them, anyway -- unless Newsom has Gascon pull cops out of other, richer neighborhoods to patrol the Loin, which may be a fine idea but will create such political backlash among Newsom's allies that he won't dare do it.

And closing fire stations seems to be political poison, so the mayor won't want to do that.

Which means public health and human services and rec-park will have to cut way more than 30 percent to save police and fire, which means we won't really have much of a public health, human services or rec-park system any more.

4. The mayor is doing nothing to prepare the public to face the fact of life -- we're going to need significant tax increases, or we're going to see the devastation of the public service sector in this city.

Welcome back, Gavin.

Oh, and by the way: The last chief executive I remember saying that he didn't read the newspapers was Ronald Reagan. Great role model. Either Newsom is lying (which I suspect; I can't believe the mayor of San Francisco actually avoids reading the daily newspaper) or the guy is more out of touch, arrogant and clueless than even I am willing to believe.

By Marke B.

Horrible murders of LGBT people have been out of control lately -- but the number of reported murders of transgender people has doubled over the past year. If you can stomach the statistics and seeing some of the faces (and it really does bring the point home, even without the dramatic music), then here:

While not all of the above people may have been killed because they were transgender, they were all killed and its a tragedy -- as well a reason that an inclusive ENDA bill and a stronger push for global transgender rights is so important. Today on Transgender Day of Remembrance, the community gets together to mark the violent passing of its members. Here's the plan:

San Francisco, California
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
7:00 - 9:00 PM
CIIS California Institute for Integral Studies
1453 MISSION ST
3rd Floor - Namaste Hall
—–
San Francisco, California
Friday, November 20, 2009
6:00 - 8:00 PM
API Wellness Center
730 Polk Street (corner of Ellis)
For more info: Leeza Edwards, Co-chair of SF TEAM
415. 724.1680 or lavendergoddess@mac.com
—–
San Francisco, California
Transgender Day of Remembrance Shabbat
Friday, November 20, 2009
7:30 PM
Congregation Sha’ar Zahav
290 Dolores Street (corner of 16th Street)
San Francisco, CA 94103
For more info: http://www.shaarzahav.org/node/1852

Faced with the 32 percent tuition hike that University of California regents approved yesterday, students have been occupying buildings on campuses in Berkeley, Davis, Santa Cruz and Davis. And, in a sign of escalating tension, we just got word of tear gas, and police hitting students with batons at UC Berkeley.

UC officials say the tuition increases, which would raise an estimated $505 million, are needed to prevent more cuts being made as a result of the state’s ongoing financial crisis.

Critics say increased tuition costs hurt low-income and middle-class students, but the regents say $175 million (of the $505 million) will go for student financial aid.

In Berkeley, students have reportedly occupied Wheeler Hall’s second floor, and campus police have arrested at least three students, after breaking through a makeshift barricade constructed of office equipment and furniture.

Regents say the first hike, in January, raises undergrad tuition $585 a semester. The second, scheduled for next fall, raises tuition an additional $1,344.

By Rachel Sadon

Students inside Wheeler Hall have started a Twitter account to track moment-to-moment changes.

The Daily Cal site has been crashing as a result of heavy traffic, but they are still updating here.

You can also check out some intense home footage here and here or full coverage on Cal TV.

Eve Batey at SF Appeal has also put together a “Guide to Tracking Today’s UC Berkeley Civil Disobedience”.

By Tim Redmond

And he appears to be against them. At least, that's what a brief interview with SF Appeal suggests:

Although that doesn't mean the Mayor is seriously considering EVERYTHING -- especially not tax hikes. The same wisdom as before applies: tax hikes don't poll well, therefore it's probably a waste of time to present them to voters. Newsom doesn't support browning out fire stations, and wants to protect police officers' salaries (which increased by another 4 percent this year). A bigger sales tax only hits poor voters, Newsom said. The state's already raising taxes, and the school district has its own parcel tax measure, so we're back to controversial moneymakers like the condo-conversion fee.

"They hate it," said Newsom, gesturing to Board members' doors. Though the Mayor was quick to mention that he and Avalos have a good working relationship, something that might not always play well with Avalos's progressive buddies on the board.

Ah yes, the condo conversion fees. The idea is to make it easier to turn rental housing into condominiums as long as you pay a fee. That would, of course, decimate the rental housing stock and lead to more evictions.

But the Examiner reports that the mayor seems to be ready to play some political hardball -- he won't talk about new taxes unless the supes give him his condo conversions and a equally bad plan to sell of taxicab permits:

Generating more revenue could soften the blow of the cuts. Newsom indicated he has not ruled out tax measures on the November ballot. But he also emphasized the need to approve two of his previous proposals that stalled after meeting opposition, including from members of the Board of Supervisors. Those proposals are charging a fee for people who want to do a condo-conversion right away, instead of having to wait for years, and auctioning off permits to drive taxicabs.

The thing about both of those items is that they represent short-term money. You'll get a lot of fees quickly -- but no structural fix.

And the supervisors won't want to go for either of them.

By Steven T. Jones

After my post yesterday about how Mayor Gavin Newsom has been ignoring the City Charter by refusing announce his public events in recent weeks, his Office of Communications just sent out a “revised media advisory” that lists his events for the day, long after the first event is over.

But, hey, at least he’s finally agreed to return to public life. Welcome back, Mr. Mayor. What follows are the first events that Newsom has announced since ending his gubernatorial bid last month:

Editors note: Just A Guy has been writing from inside the California state prison system. He was released this week -- great news -- but the story is by no means over. Here's his latest; you can read his some of his previous posts here and here.

It's also a little easier for him to communicate now, so he can more quickly respond to your comments and questions.

By Just A Guy

I’m sitting here about 24 hours after my release from California State Prison, Solano wondering what the hell I am going to do -- because I am staying in a hotel and unable to travel to my home.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m grateful to be out -- but beyond irritated at the measures The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has gone through to make it difficult for people to transition back into society. You see, I don’t live in this state, and though I started attempting to get my parole transferred out of state six months ago while in prison (as required) the request wasn’t done until two months ago, and Sacramento’s regional parole desk hasn’t even received it.

Now I’m hoping that I am given a travel pass to go out of state to see my little girls and be with my family for Thanksgiving, but that is, according to my P.O, a very tenuous proposition because his boss doesn’t like to give out travel passes…and since I just got out I’m not known…and it doesn’t seem to matter much that my house, my car, my business, and my entire support network are over a thousand miles away…you get the picture.
And I’m one of the lucky ones, because I have the resources to be able to live in a hotel for three months if necessary, to work from a hotel as well, to have a car delivered to me. WHAT ABOUT THOSE THAT DON’T HAVE THOSE RESOURCES?

(Not an hour after writing this I was fortunate enough to have my P.O call me and let me know that I have been approved to go to the state where my family resides as long as the supervising agent there is willing to accept me, which he is. I am grateful that my agent was able to go to bat for me and get this done, that I will be able to spend the holidays with my family, friends, and loved ones).

Again and again, the mediocrity of the R of CDCR stands to the fore -- yet the citizens are in denial as to what the real problem is. How can a system such as this possibly sustain rehabilitation? It’s truly unconscionable to proclaim that they are helping. What is also unconscionable is a lot of these P.O.’s really want to help people stay out of prison and protect society -- but their hands are being tied by tough-on-crime rhetoric and lack of funding.

Yeah, we committed the crimes, but the majority of these crimes were committed in the pursuit of drugs or alcohol or the rewards of selling the former. What good can possibly come of sending a person into society after many years with no substantive rehabilitative programs, and having him live in the bushes by the freeway, and not let him go home out of state because of CDCRs bureaucratic follies unrelated to the inmate’s attempts to get the paperwork done? Don’t you see how the system is set up for failure?

There are more than 600 more people in prison per 100,000 people in the USA vs. Netherlands (700 vs. 100) , but it’s the inmates that are the problem, right?

Yes, we (I) made some very poor choices, but I just did three years and two months for possession (a victimless crime). I was not allowed to go into the Substance Abuse Program because I had an out of state warrant for a marker I didn’t pay at a casino in Vegas (felony warrant), although I did pay it eventually. What about people who couldn’t pay? Do they need help any less? How does keeping someone from entering a drug abuse program because of old warrants help him prepare for a return to society? How does anything in this broken self-fulfilling prophecy of recidivism called CDCR help transition your soon-to-be neighbors back into the world?

Again, it’s our responsibility to find our own recovery, our own path to staying out of prison, but don’t believe for one minute that we are given the help many of us need, many of us hope for, and many of us never get…because though it is our responsibility many have never been responsible for anything at all, then they are asked to be, they try and find the brick wall that is CDC(R).

I really appreciate the support of my readers over the time I've been writing from inside, but my thoughts and observations on the prison system won't just end now that I've been released. I'll continue to write about the parole process as it develops and to comment on prison issues -- and you can look forward to a larger story on my experience in the pages of the Bay Guardian in the near future.

By Rachel Sadon

Negotiations between students barricaded inside Wheeler Hall and campus police and administrators just broke down, as police sawed the hinges off the door and entered the room where the students are hold up.

Reports from the Berkeley campus describe students trying to arrange negotiations, and police moving in to break down barricades and make arrests.

Havoc broke out on the campus this morning in response to yesterday’s 32% increase in tuition fees in the UC system.

Wheeler isn’t an administration building -- it’s mostly classrooms for English classes. But it’s right in the middle of campus, so the protest action has taken over the central campus area.

Rachel Brahinsky, a former Guardian reporter who is now a Berkeley grad student, called in with this report:

Tensions are escalating. Rows of riot cops are marching toward lines of students at the barricades. They come up to the students and barrel through. A student has been injured with either a rubber bullet or a taser, we’re not sure which.

I have personally witnessed two incidents of students getting beaten badly.

None of this is provoked. The students have linked arms, but nobody has taken any hostile action toward the cops.

According to a spokesperson for the students, Callie Maidhof, the action started early this morning. “Around 5 a.m. a group of students put barricades up and sometime before 6 a.m. police arrived and arrested three people who were unable to get up to the second floor.”

She added that bail was set at $10,000 for two of the students and $16,000 for the third (he refused to provide a DNA sample), who gave the statement “I think it’s ironic that we’ve been charged for burglary when it’s them that are stealing our futures.”

The two initial demands of the estimated sixty locked-in students were to rehire the 38 custodial workers that were recently laid off by American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and to grant amnesty for all protesters involved in the events.

As the day progressed, the occupiers added two more, 3) to enter into good faith negotiations with the current business occupants of the Bears Lair Food Court and 4) to reinstate the Rochdale Berkeley student cooperative lease in perpetuity.

But of course, this is also partially the result of the furor on campus over fee hikes.

Professor and member of the Solidarity Alliance Lynn Hollander commented, “Though I would not have recommended an occupation like this, since it has happened, I am enormously proud of the students and particularly such by their initial demands. It is an act of enormous solidarity and generosity.”

According to Maidhof, the occupiers consistently requested negotiations, however, their initial calls to police were not returned. A team of faculty, including Professor Ananya Roy, helped arrange the negotiations with the students. A lawyer was initially prevented from entering the building but eventually participated in the talks, which have since broken down.

There have been several incidents of recorded police violence, including at least two protesters with hands broken. Zhivka Valiavicharska, a graduate student in the department of rhetoric, had her hand resting on a barricade and was hit by a police baton. She was taken to a hospital and will need reconstructive surgery.

This was the second occupation of a building on campus this week. On Wednesday, students locked themselves in to the administration building where capital projects are based, but the confrontation was resolved in a few hours.

Professor Scott Saul empathized with students’ frustration, “It’s totally understandable that students are very angry at this moment. Fees are skyrocketing, services are being slashed and they are concerned that the core mission of the university is rapidly eroding.

The website of the Daily Californian, the campus paper, is down after getting deluged, but the staff is still putting out twitter reports here.