The saga of one of the biggest development battles in San Francisco took an unexpected turn today when Gap, Inc. founder and billionaire Don Fisher announced that he would back off from his plans for a private art museum in the Presidio. The proposed 100,000 square foot museum sparked widespread public outrage, with critics charging that it was an inappropriate location that wouldn’t jive with the surroundings.

The Chronicle broke the story this morning, quoting Fisher as saying:

"Doris and I will take some time to consider the future of our collection and other possible locations for a museum, which could include other sites within the Presidio and elsewhere," Don Fisher said, referring to his wife in a statement released to The Chronicle late Wednesday that also said the decision was made "with disappointment and sadness."

It must be tough, being a billionaire with a world-class art collection who can’t even build his very own private museum on an historic piece of public land without getting shouted down. Poor guy.

But as Fisher comes to grips with his "disappointment and sadness," museum opponents now have a cause for celebration.

Joe Holladay, beaten June 29, in New York. Image via Towleroad

Well, I guess it wouldn't be the 40th anniversary of Stonewall if a few "fagits" (sic) didn't get their heads bashed for daring to be all gay about it, right? Some sad reports coming in on the tinsel-footed heels of this week's celebrations (see below). My thoughts -- beyond the usual initial rage and helplessness -- are that, just like right-wing wingnuts with liberals, the idiot perpetrators are coming out of the woordwork because they feel threatened by our continued uptick in acceptance, visibility, and flair. Plus they're probs hella gay.

So of course we have to keep the burners on high and continue the fight (but always keep your eyes open and your heels short). Another thought is that a lot of the commenters on some of the blogs breaking these stories are starting to advocate bashing-back violence -- which dismays. By all means we should get riled up by all this and use our anger constructively. But let's pass on the late-'80s testosterone-blind posturing, please. A, it's dated, darling. B, yuck.

1. Fort Worth, WTF? Twenty-six-year-old Chad Gibson was put in intensive care with a blood clot in his brain after Fort Worth cops raided a gay bar (old school!) and roughed up the customers on June 30, for nebulous, yet pretty damning, reasons. (Basically no reasons at all.)

A cell phone capture of Gibson grounded by police at Fort Worth's Rainbow Room

FTW police chief Jeff Halstead actually claimed the gay panic defense. To whit:

"You're touched and advanced in certain ways by people inside the bar, that's offensive," he said. "I'm happy with the restraint used when they were contacted like that."

Appropriate hysteria ensued. Then, under heat, Halstead kind of freaked out and claimed there would be a full, in-depth investigation. Hopefully the touchy, advance-y kind.

"We’ve got to work together," Halstead said. "Be patient, and you will see that this is just not lip service. I will meet with you wherever you want to meet. I will go to your restaurants, your house, we can eat barbecue, whatever you want to do. But we’ve got to talk. We will heal beyond this."

I can only imagine what "your restaurants" are in Fort Worth. Fuddruckers?

2. New York, no way NYPD police are investigating, without the BBQ offer (THANK YOU!), the horrendous beating of Joe Holladay at 4am on June 29, by a group of men who called him "faggot" and left him in a pool of blood. Holladay had stepped out of a friend's apartment on East 85th Street for a smoke when he got jumped, according to witnesses, by "five or six young white men 'with crewcuts, wearing wife-beaters' smoking pot." (!?! about the pot part.) He's currently recovering in the hospital.

3. Ljubljana attack "Eight masked assailants, dressed in all black, shouted anti-gay slogans" and attacked Slovenian gay rights leader (and cute bear) Mitja Blažić and several others at a literary night, for chrissakes, in Ljubljana on June 26. The night had been organized during Pride week to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the founding of the Slovenian homosexual association Legebitra. The assailants tried to burn down the bookstore and attacked the attendees with lit torches. Blažić was treated for burns on his neck and cuts on his head. Slovenian police are investigating. And Ljubljana Pride still looked pretty dang cute.

OK -- whew. It just keeps coming, folks. Good thing we're beautiful.

Progressives aren’t feeling much joy over the city budget deal that was cut yesterday between Mayor Gavin Newsom and Sups. David Chiu and John Avalos (respectively the board president and chair of the Budget Committee), and that’s not just because it gave the gubernatorial candidate the chance to shamelessly crow, “The contrast is stark, isn't it? In Sacramento, it's a state of emergency. In San Francisco, a budget deal."

It’s true that the deal to restore $43.7 million in Newsom-proposed cuts – more so-called “add-backs” than a Board of Supervisors has ever made to a mayor’s budget -- was a real compromise, not coincidentally about half of what the board’s progressive majority was looking for, and it averted bloody budget standoff that neither side wanted.

But the cuts to progressive priorities are still deep and Newsom’s wasteful pet projects and taxpayer-funded political operation remain intact (Paul Hogarth has a good analysis of the numbers here). And the whole episode just feels a little like it was scripted by Team Newsom, starting on June 1 when the mayor unveiled his budget and said, “I count on you to add back a lot of the things I don’t want to see cut.”

Of course, that was followed by an aggressive butting of heads: the police and fire unions slammed the rookie supervisorial leaders hard, even running a sound truck through Avalos’ neighborhood calling for his recall, which progressive activists and union leaders responded to with increasingly confrontational tactics, even blocking Newsom’s Pride Parade vehicle with a “die-in.”

Ultimately, the clashes led to a compromise that Avalos described to us as: “It’s as good as we could possibly get.”

But Sup. Chris Daly, labor activist Robert Haaland, and others say they just don’t trust Newsom and note the likelihood that he’ll target the same social services that he tried to eliminate this time, only the board will have less leverage to stop him. “If we had played hardball longer, we would have done better,” Daly told us, although he noted how hard the mayor’s side squeezed Avalos and Chiu.

Yet Avalos credits the hardball that he did play with reaching the deal he did. Given Newsom’s public, campaign-style pledge to protect the police and fire departments from layoffs – which the budget deal did – Avalos said his willingness to go after those political sensitive departments helped force the deal with a mayor who had refused to negotiate.

“I was willing to go after the police and the mayor couldn’t accept that,” Avalos said. “I went through hell and high water to get this.”

Sup. David Campos, another progressive member of the Budget Committee, told us he has "mixed feelings" about the budget deal, which he voted to support yesterday. He commended Avalos and Chiu for their efforts and said, "It's a budget that got us a good result given the circumstances."

But those circumstances were largely dictated by Newsom's priorities and dire fiscal realities, which were difficult for progressives to overcome. "Part of the problem is structural," he said. "There's a structural imbalance of power between the board and the mayor."

Newsom could threaten to veto the whole budget (which the core progressive board majority doesn't have the eight votes to overcome) or make line-item vetoes to provisions that he doesn't like (something that only a budget deal could prevent, assuming Newsom keeps his word), the unfortunate reality of San Francisco's strong mayor system of government. So the board threatened cuts (which the mayor can't unilaterally restore) and tried to cajole him into seeking new revenues.

That latter fight didn't yield much from a mayor who running for governor partially with a no-new-taxes position. As Campos said, "That's a fight left for another day."

83 year-old Minerva Dunn demands a total and unrestricted cleanup of Hunters Point Shipyard, not a cap, shortly before police use bull cutters to remove her from a giant stop-work order that she and other activists have chained themselves to, in an effort to blockade the former naval station''s main entrance in San Francisco.

Protestors chant "Don't cap it, just clean it" after four people chain themselves to a giant stop work order at Hunters Point Shipyard, demanding that the Navy remove a radiologically impacted dump at the former naval station.

Thanks to all who kept an eye out! Now we can go back to delivering fresh brownies to all!

UPDATE: According the Scavenger blog, a teacher from Corta Madera named Kevin Mahoney phoned in the van's location. Kevin, if you're reading this, please email marke@sfbg.com and claim your fresh brownie!

The most telling paragraph is the second one, describing Newsom’s initial confusion over an emergency call button on his desk: “Newsom says he has not had occasion to press the button since, although the mayor admits he is tempted to whenever meetings drag on or when reporters ask him annoying questions or when he becomes bored, something that happens easily.”

There are mountains of things to say about all this – from discussing Newsom’s carefully crafted media image to pushing back on the latest East Coast “wow, isn’t California weird” profile – but for now, just give this long piece a read and feel free to discuss. I was already working on another Newsom post for later in the day, and this is just one of many interesting items that have popped up in the last strange week.

Protesters block the main entrance to the shipyard with a giant stop work order

A sizeable crowd gathered outside the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard’s main entrance Tuesday to protest Bayview Hunters Point residents and environmental advocates ongoing concerns with Lennar’s plans to develop 770 acres at the shipyard and Candlestick Point--and to blockade the entrance with a giant stop work order.

Sponsored by Greenaction for Health & Environmental Justice, POWER and the San Francisco Green Party, the protest was also attended by Nation of Islam followers, Mothers Against Crime, and even a few young and enthusiastic school children.

Activists addressed the crowd, speaking about asbestos dust contamination at the site, radiologically impacted dumps on the shipyard, and proposals to build thousands of condos on what is now Candlestick Point State Recreation Area. And all were clear on one point: Lennar needs to be stopped and held accountable.

“We know that pollution doesn’t know property lines,” said Tony Kelly, President of the Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association. Noting that Lennar is looking for another 42 acres to develop at Candlestick, Kelly quipped, “I guess 770 acres aren’t enough.”

“Not in our name, not in our money,” said GreenAction’s Marie Harrison, pumping up the crowd with chants, which included that perennial favorite, “Don’t cap it, just clean it,” a reference to the Navy’s proposal to cap radiologically impacted sites at the shipyard, rather than dig and haul them out, as the community has repeatedly said it prefers.

“Clean air is a right,” said John Rizzo, director of the Sierra Club’s San Francisco Bay chapter, and a City College board member. “What we have other there is poison air.”

“If there is no harm being done over there, then why not test people,” Rizzo added.

Rizzo also addressed SB 792, state legislation that would allow the sale of 42 acres of Candlestick Point State Recreation Area so Lennar can build waterfront condos.

“What would happen if the city wanted to sell 42 acres of Golden Gate Park,” Rizzo said.

A pastor for the Samoan community’s Soul’d Out Christian Center advocated for greater outreach if the Bayview is to get its message heard.

“A citywide movement needs to rise up, if we are going to do something about Lennar,” the Soul’d Out pastor said.

His message was repeated by POWER’s Davu Flint.
“The entire city needs to rise up and call Lennar out,” Flint said.

Currently preparing land on the former Hunters Point Shipyard for the construction of 1600 new condos, Lennar Corp. was fined $500,000 in 2008 for failing to enforce stringent plans to protect residents, in particular children, from exposure to asbestos dust, but locals fear that they are still being exposed to dangerous amounts of carcinogens agents.

These events culminated in the blockade of the main entrance to the shipyard with a giant stop work order, to which four activists were chained. One of the activists, Minerva Dunn, is an 80-year-old grandmother and longtime resident of San Francisco.

Joining her were Marie Harrison of Greenaction, and Ros Ruiz and Max Schnuer, both allies of Greenaction.

As time passed, a small line of cars began to form outside the barricade, prompting officers to move in and attempt to clear the entrance. Although the protestors refused to unlock themselves, officers did not make any immediate arrests. The group was eventually removed with assistance from a lock cutter, and police confiscated the work order. While no one was taken into custody, the four protestors were given citations stating that they were detained by SFPD and subsequently released.

Although Harrison considered the rally a success, she said she was “disappointed, though not surprised,” that a representative from Lennar declined to attend and meet the “real local community.”
However, she emphasized that the fight was far from over.

“I promise we will be back, and I never make a promise I can’t keep,” Harrison said.
She also hinted that protesters plan to make their presence known next week at city hall. But whether city leaders will hear their arguments remains to be seen.

Serpentinite rock with veins of naturally occurring asbestos

Henry Alvarez, executive director of the San Francisco Housing Authority, acknowledges that a judge tossed out the unlawful detainer suit that the SFHA brought against the Nation of Islam’s Center for Self Improvement in the Bayview and its leader Minister Christopher Muhammad.

“But the court left room for us to refile with some guidance,” Alvarez added, claiming that his agency tried to amend its complaints outside the court with Muhammad’s lawyer, Richard Drury, “but we could not reach an amicable solution.”

So, is the SFHA planning to file again, and if so, on what grounds?

“Our primary concern,” Alvarez said, noting that they’ve been hearing rumors and innuendo about the kids being sick, but that he personally doesn’t know about these environmental concerns, “is that if these allegations prove to be true, we’d have risk and exposure, because the lease holder doesn’t have adequate insurance.”

Muhammad’s lawyer said the Center has acquired insurance since the SFHA filed suit, but Alvarez is not satisfied.

“They gave us a certificate of insurance that runs from April 2009 to April 2010, but what about 2002 to 2009?” Alvarez said,

Noting that the Center has another 17 years left on the lease, Alvarez added, “I don’t know of any scientific evidence, but there are rumors that the kids are being harmed by activities on the shipyard, so if a child is harmed at the school, they have until two years after they turn 18 years old to file for indemnification.”

“We realize this is fairly controversial and that there is a tremendous amount of community interest,” Alavarez continued. “If there is a problem on a site we own, we think a leasee ought to get insurance that covers that. The SFHA is worried about any risk profile of any kind, such as a kid getting hit by a car. If the school is unable to indemnify us, that would be a significant liability. It would be good for any business to have insurance against unforeseeable risk.”

But Muhammad’s lawyer Drury told the Guardian that the Center has already purchased insurance as specified under its lease and feels that the SFHA argument is crazy, given that it’s not the school who is exposing anyone.

“On the one hand, you’ve got the city vociferously saying that there is no asbestos problem, and on the other hand you’ve got the Housing Authority saying, we want you to get insurance for millions, because of fears of asbestosis—in which case, we invite the city to join us in our Prop. 65 suit against Lennar and its subcontractors,” Drury said.

Drury further claims that the monitoring data that folks know have available proves that the community has been exposed to asbestos.

“The question is whether anyone will get asbestosis, and we won’t know the answer for 20 years,” Drury said, noting that when needle-shaped asbestos particles get lodged in lungs and can’t be coughed out, a tumor forms, and that relatives of asbestos workers have developed the disease simply from being exposed to dust that workers brought home on their clothes.

“The school is an innocent bystander in this, so why should the school be indemnifying anyone?” Drury asked.As for SFHA’s other concern about the Center’s alleged unpaid rent, Alvarez says he doesn’t disagree that the Center has an offset, as we reported here last week.

“But they need to show us some semblance of payment, not things described as charitable contributions,” Alvarez said.

When the SFHA filed its original suit, earlier this year, Alvarez said it was owed, “north of $160,000 in unpaid rent,” but he concedes that the agency knew much of that amount, which dates back to 2002, would likely be unrecoverable under the statute of limitations.

“They clearly owe us in excess of $20,000 for periods of time,” Alvarez insisted, noting that typically, you can recover a year’s worth of unpaid rent.

Asked why the SFHA didn’t chose to go after the rent from the Center before, given that the Center has been renting the Kiska Road facility since 2002, Alvarez claimed that it had always been a concern, but that he has only been heading the agency since July 2008, when the agency was under financial scrutiny.

“In the course of that scrutiny, we discovered that the Center has an unpaid monthly payment of $2,000,” Alvarez said. “With that money, I can create an entire summer jobs and youth basketball program.”

Alvarez claimed he tried to call the Center and was told they’d communicate with their leadership, as to whether they’d talk to the SFHA.

“When they wouldn’t, we filed those actions to reinforce their lease,” he said

Drury for his part says the Center has provided proof that it costs more to run the school than $2,000 a month.

“The free lunch program costs more than $3,000 a month, and they provided checks showing payments to their teachers, “ Drury said

“They’re complaining that we blocked out the names of the teachers on the checks, but they sued the Minister by name and we don’t want them naming these teachers in court,” Drury added, noting that non-profits don’t have to show names of employees.

“I understand that some people don’t like the Nation, but I think that no matter what your religion is, you shouldn’t be exposed to asbestos dust.”

School children and staff at the Nation’s K-12 school adjacent to the shipyard became the focus of intense public health concerns after news broke that developer Lennar failed to properly monitor and control asbestos dust as they graded a hill full of naturally-occurring asbestos next to the school, in preparation for building thousands of condominiums.

Before Lennar began work at the site, the state's Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the City's public health department both insisted on stringent dust protection plans at the site: an asbestos dust mitigation plan, for the state, and a regular dust mitigation plan, for the city.

But when grading began, no monitors—neither for asbestos nor for regular dust—were properly installed or maintaind, leaving the community and the city without protection,

Even after that news broke, Lennar’s subcontractor, Gordon Ball, repeatedly failed to water down the site and its trucks properly, once again violating the terms of both sets of dust mitigation plans and breaking trust with the community.

As a result, the air district fined Lennar half a million dollars, the biggest fine in BAAQMD's history.

The Nation also filed a Prop. 65 lawsuit against Lennar and Ball, and as the Guardian reported last week, that suit has been reinstated, after Lennar's lawyers got it thrown out of court, on a technicality.

Meanwhile, the Mayor's Office has been framing the Minister as a shakedown artist, arguing that this must be the case since he refused their offer to move the school elsewhere.

Muhammad told the Guardian that he was refusing to move because that would turn the school into a political football, and would do nothing to protect the rest of the community.

But now the latest argument against the Minister seems to be that just in case there is truth to the community's environmental concerns, the school needs to purchase massive insurance coverage. Hmmmmmm.

Editors note: Just A guy is an inmate in a California state prison. You can read his most recent blog, and links to past blogs, here. He will try to respond to comments, but communication from prison is often difficult, so be patient.

I just read in USA Today about the penalty Cleveland Browns wide receiver Donte Stallworth received for killing someone while driving drunk in Florida: Thirty days in jail, two years of house arrest, eight years probation, and 1,000 hours of community service.

I guess it really does pay to have money!

I know of a man who has been in prison in California for 21 years now on his 15-to-life sentence. He’s been found suitable for parole three times, and has had the governor deny his parole three times. This is a man who, like Stallworth, had NO criminal record, but wasn’t rich or a football star.

This man has not received one incident report for violating prison rules in 21 years of incarceration, has a wonderful support network, from a good family, and has a job waiting for him.

This scenario is just as likely to happen in California as in Florida, where they actually kill people with the death penalty.

What’s going on here? I find it stunning that the disparity of such type of cases is still so apparent, but the enormity of it is .. God, I’m truly at a loss for words.

Oddly, I’m sitting here in the hole, 33 months in to a 48 month sentence for possession of a controlled substance. I wasn’t allowed into Prop. 36 (the state’s version of a drug program) because when I got arrested I was also charged with driving under the influence, which eliminated my eligibility to enter the treatment program. Some loophole, eh?

The typical sentence for my crime is two years, and you get work credit for 50% and serve about 14 months. The reason I have to serve four years is because of a criminal history that occurred in 1993 and prior, which at the time I was sentences was 13 years ago. Bear in mind that I was given the extra time because I had offenses from 13 years ago that are now considered strikable offenses -- but my current crime is possession. Not a violent crime.

So to summarize: Because I, an addict, drove under the influence of the drugs I possessed I was not allowed to enter a drug program but was given the mid-term (2 year) sentence, doubled (4 years) and I have to do 80% of that 4 years because I had a prior crime nearly 14 years earlier -- even though my current crime, possession, is non-violent and my arrest report shows the victim as the state of California.

I should have been Donte Stallworth…

My question to you is this: Who’s the victim here?

This is not meant as a plea for sympathy or understanding for me. Quite honestly, I was rescued when I was arrested and probably would have wound up dead, I was so far down in the depths of my cocaine addiction. And still had resources to continue for a bit.

You, citizens of California, are the victims! You are the ones paying more than $150,000 for me to do this time. You are the ones funding prisons, not education. You are paying for it because you’ve come to believe what you’ve been told -- and now your kids will get their degrees in the big house rather than a house of higher learning.

I consider that I probably owe that state a debt of gratitude. In five months, when I’m released and rolling in my convertible M3, I’ll know that maybe I contributed to the continued to success of a legal business for 18 months, working from a cell phone in prison. And I was given a chance to see how this state is creating monsters on your dime. And I will never look back, never come back, and never spend another cent in a California that’s so blindfully dedicated to destroying itself because everyone is trying to save face.

Well, we’ve got a saying in NA that California might want to consider:

“You can’t save your face and your ass at the same time.”

Things were finally beginning to fall into place for Jon Aguon. The 24-year-old college student and avid surfer and skater had completed his summer courses the day before, he’d just signed a lease on a place in the city, and he planned to spend the afternoon at a skate park on Potrero Avenue. He loaded up his skateboard, hopped on his bike, and started making his way there.

The trouble started when a bus stopped ahead of him, blocking the bike lane. In a matter of seconds, Aguon looked over his shoulder, checked for oncoming traffic, and began maneuvering around it. That’s when the Ford Expedition entered the picture.

“I remember the split second before I got hit, the roar of the Expedition motor. I knew exactly what this car was doing: accelerating to pass me,” he says. “Well, it didn’t pass me.”

Aguon says he bounced off the SUV, spun a 540, and then wound up landing on his knee. The shock set in, and he immediately curled into a fetal position. Moments later, he stood shakily. There was a sharp pain in his back, and a large blood spot was forming on his jeans at the kneecap. As he stood there dazed, the driver left his name and number with a nearby cyclist and drove off.

The bike accident occurred almost a year ago, and now Aguon -- who suffered a broken rib, a badly sprained ACL and a bruised and swollen Tibia from the ordeal -- says he’s still at just a fraction of his strength. Since the collision, “I haven’t even tried surfing,” he says.

Getting hit hasn’t kept Aguon from using a bike as his exclusive mode of transportation. But it did inspire him to speak out in favor of the Bike Plan, a comprehensive citywide network of new bike paths and amenities with improved cyclist safety as its centerpiece. “I’m not one of those cyclists who hates cars,” Aguon told us, adding that in fact, he loves to drive. But he believes that with improved bicycle infrastructure, accidents like his could be fewer and farther between.

In an article in last week's San Francisco Examiner, a box titled “Life By the Numbers” revealed that there were 343 collision injuries involving bicyclists in the city in 2006. If 343 collisions are already occurring per year, a reader may wonder, won’t there be many more accidents if more bicyclists are out on the roads in coming years taking advantage of new bike infrastructure (assuming it's installed)?

Jared Blumenfeld, director of the city’s Department of the Environment, was one of several city department heads to urge the MTA Board to approve all of the proposed Bike Plan projects last Friday. In London, Blumenfeld told the Board members, something interesting happened when the city decided to invest in its bicycle infrastructure. The number of cyclists on city streets doubled, but the number of collisions between bikes and cars went down -- not up. In fact, Blumenfeld said, the number of bike accidents fell by 50 percent, and the overall effect was to calm traffic.

If the experience of that foggy city is any indication, San Francisco could be headed toward quieter, safer streets as a result of the SFMTA Board’s approval of the 45 Bike Plan projects. Assuming the looming legal hurdles are cleared and the construction of 34 miles of new bike lanes begins on schedule in August, San Franciscans can perhaps look forward to seeing more bikes, and fewer bike collisions, on city streets in the next several years.

Look for more on the San Francisco Bike Plan in tomorrow’s issue of the Guardian.

Here's how bad the economy is: Somebody broke into the Bay Guardian parking lot last night, rammed through the chain-link fence and drove away with our van.

Kinda crazy -- it's ten years old, it's all beat up -- and it has the Guardian logo all over it and a Best of the Bay mural on the side. Hard to hide.

It's value is probably more sentimental than economic at this point, but we miss it -- after all, we used the van as the cover of our Best of the Bay issue back in 1999, when it was brand new. We commissioned the van-mural, designed by Tim Racer at Racer-Reynolds Illustration and painted by Rich Ayer at Signmakers, and we'd hate to see the artwork chopped up or painted over.

So if you see it, call SFPD burglary at 553-1261. Or call us.

As expected, Mayor Gavin Newsom has promised to veto the renter relief and protection legislation passed by the Board of Supervisors at last week’s meeting. And in response, renters will rally at the steps of City Hall at noon on Tuesday to demand that Newsom offer some alternative if he indeed kills the renters’ package.

The legislation, in descending order of controversy, suspended rent increases that would exceed one-third of a tenant’s income for those who had recently lost a job, had their wages decreased by at least 20 percent, or derived their income solely from government assistance; allowed the addition of a roommate without a resulting rent increase, and amended rent-banking rules to cap rent hikes at 8 percent annually.

Authored by Sup. Chris Daly, the changes are intended to address the precarious position of San Francisco renters, who constitute two-thirds of the city’s population.

“Tenants who have lost their jobs are losing their homes because they can’t afford these sky high rents and they desperately need some help,” he said in statement.

Newsom’s threatened veto comes without any alternate plan proposed to assist renters and help ensure they will be able to keep their homes through the turbulence of the recession/depression.

Tenants, frustrated by Newsom’s apparent disregard for their concerns – he has, according to the Tenants Union’s statement, “ignored requests to meet or discuss his concerns with this legislation” – will meet on the steps of City Hall to rally briefly and then proceed to Newsom’s office to try to air their grievances directly to the mayor.

Pride At Work protests the mayor's budget on Pride day. Photo: Luke Thomas, Fog CIty Journal

Today at 5 pm the LGBT labor group Pride at Work will hold a vigil on the steps of City Hall protesting the mayor’s deep budget cuts to programs that are vital to much of the queer community. The vigil runs until midnight, so you can stop by after work.

As Fog City Journal reports, this is the second major Pride at Work protest over the budget cuts -- the group staged a die-in in front of Mayor Newsom’s car in the Pride Parade. As Newsom attempted to step around the protesters, they let him have an earful on the effects of his budget cuts that slashed funding for the Departments of Public Health and Human Services

“The die-in demonstrated reality. When you cut HIV programs, people will sero-convert. When you cut the drug programs, people will die,” Harvey Milk Club president Rafael Mandelman told the Guardian today. He said the protest indicates that the mayor “can’t ride same-sex marriage forever. We’re grateful for the mayor’s efforts in that area, but we need budgets that will protect vulnerable populations and queers. People’s lives are at stake.”

Despite the passage of Prop. 8, Newsom does indeed seem to still be riding the crest of same sex marriage. In a recent fundraising letter for his gubernatorial campaign, a supporter enthuses: “Mayor Newsom married S-- and I in his office in 2004. He always held our relationship equal to his own… S-- and I will always love him for standing with us and fighting for us.”

But some LGBT leaders are starting to feel that the choices of what departments to cut back are not equal in the least.

Robert Haaland is a labor activist and long time leader of the local chapter of Pride at Work. He told us the budget cuts “are no different from what Schwarzenegger is doing. No new revenue, deep cuts to health and human services. It’d be fine if he was running as a Republican governor.”

Haaland pointed out that when Newsom ran against Supervisor Matt Gonzales in 2003, Newsom was neutral on gay marriage, and Gonzales got the majority of votes in District 8, which includes the Castro.

“He changed his position on marriage, but that doesn’t give him license to use marriage as a shield for budget cuts affecting LGBT and poor people,” Haaland said.

And Mandelman sums up, “It’s great to celebrate marriage, but for a lot of people it’s a luxury.”

This is not the kind of information a candidate for governor likes to hear, but the Chron reports today that Attorney General Jerry Brown is way ahead of Newsom among Democrats in the race for California's next governor. Matier and Ross say

The poll by JMM Research of 525 Democratic and decline-to-state voters is the first snapshot since Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced last week that he wasn't running.

With Villaraigosa in the lineup, the numbers read:

-- Brown, 33 percent.

-- Newsom, 20 percent.

-- Villaraigosa, 17 percent.

Take the L.A. mayor out, and it's:

-- Brown, 46 percent.

-- Newsom, 26 percent.

Brown does best with the voters over 40, who tend to turn out in bigger numbers on election day. Newsom thrives with the younger crowd, which he hopes to turn out big time, a la Barack Obama.

Geographically, Brown beats Newsom everywhere but the Bay Area.

But let's be serious here: These early numbers mean exactly nothing. The race is a year and a half away, and this is nothing but name recognition and vague opinions based on current news media reports.

My take: Newsom's toughest opposition would have been Villaraigosa, and with the L.A. mayor out of the way, he's really the front-runner. Why? Because this is a textbook campaign -- the new against the old, the fresh face against yesterday's news, the guy who has only a very limited (and carefully crafted) record against the guy who has been around a long time and has done enough in his life to piss off both the left and the right.

I'm not a Newsom fan (in case you hadn't noticed) and I've always liked Jerry Brown personally (although he was a horrible mayor of Oakland and is taking some awful positions). The fact that he's in his 70s shouldn't be an issue -- he's healthy, lively, full of energy, and to dis him because of his age is wrong on many, many levels ... but that doesn't mean the Newsom camp won't (subtly) do it, and it doesn't mean it won't work.

I'm talking real, harsh politics here -- and I'm betting that Newsom's team isn't a bit concerned with these poll numbers.