San Francisco’s Proposition B, which gives voters a say in waterfront development, will remain in effect under a settlement announced Wednesday that ends a state lawsuit challenging the measure.
The State Lands Commission, which sued the city over the proposition — approved by voters four years ago — agreed to let the measure’s checks on high-rise buildings stand. In exchange, city officials offered to guarantee that future projects would benefit not only San Francisco but all state residents…
Newsom, a former mayor of San Francisco and now candidate for governor, was widely criticized for going to battle with the city. He maintained that, as a state officeholder, he had the responsibility to look out for the interests of all of California… (more)
Did Newsom really think suing the city would win him votes for Governor?
Can we reform local politics in a Citizens United era? Or will some reforms just make things worse?
The San Francisco Ethics Commission could be facing a showdown with the Board of Supes in the next two weeks over a detailed, complex set of changes to the city’s campaign rules that board members first reviewed last week – but that the commission could put on the ballot without changes Feb. 16.
The commission in November, after months of discussion, sent a package to the board that finally got a hearing in the Budget and Finance Committee last week…
And the way the City Charter works, the supes can either adopt the rules pretty much as they are – or the Ethics Commission can vote Feb. 16 to place the measure on the June 5 ballot.
“The commission has put the board in a tough spot,” Peskin said. “It’s hard to get this right in a handful of days.”…(more)
As I noted earlier, the major public opposition to the Ethic’s Commission bill came from the big non-profits connected to the development community. This bills will win or lose based on the emotional appeal of the concept. Voters will not be reading the fine print on this one.
None of the candidates made a case for why they are different than the others; that’s a problem when the city is in a serious crisis and so many voters are undecided
The first mayoral debate of the spring had no clear winners or losers; in fact, none of the candidates stood out as dramatically different from any of the others. That may be in part because this event was sponsored by the decidedly moderate United Democratic Club, with the decidedly conservative Chronicle Editorial Page Editor John Diaz asking all of the questions.
There’s clearly a lot of interest in the race: So many people came out on a beautiful Saturday afternoon that the Koret Auditorium at the main library filled to capacity, as didn an overflow room, and still people were turned away.
The candidates had a chance to define themselves as different in a crowded field, and I don’t think any of them did that.
Mark Leno came the closest: From the start, he said that he is convinced that “we need a new direction at City Hall” and that he would offer “a fundamental change from the status quo.”…
I give Kim and Leno credit: They were the only two who said, when asked about homelessness, that prevention is as important as responding…
Leno suggested that the city ought to sue the speculators who are abusing the Ellis Act by purchasing building after building and in each case claiming they want to go out of the business of being a landlord.
Weiss correctly pointed out that it does not good to put people in shelters or medical facilities if they are released back to the streets with no place to go. She’s a fan of Seattle-style “supportive villages.”…
When it came to traffic congestion, we saw a few minor differences. Breed is not in favor of a London-style toll system that charges drivers for the right to head into congested areas; Kim and Leno said that’s an idea worth pursuing…(more)
Missed this Mayoral debate, as I attended the much more divisive Senator Wiener Town Hall. This event attracted a crowd of people from outside the city and a lot of folks from Wiener’s district 8, who oppose the housing legislation he is pushing, outlined in this article: “Scott Weiner’s War on Local Planning”
All of the issues involving housing, displacement, homelessness, crime, and economic inequalities are based on the belief that “unlimited growth is good”. Where in California has dense housing resulted in a decease in displacement, homelessness, crime, or a better lifestyle for residents?
by Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez : facebook and sfexaminer – excerpt
From Facebook :
Please read and share. A lot of calls and a lot of work went into today’s ON GUARD, which I tried, very hard, to strike a balance between varying opinions out there on London Breed’s ouster.
But I did so by speaking to those most affected by the allegations of racism and sexism: Black women San Franciscans…
From SF Examiner column:
“You’re racist! … This is war!”
The cries of a handful of black women echoed under our gilded City Hall dome Tuesday after a startling vote to replace London Breed with Supervisor Mark Farrell as mayor.
Headlines in the New York Times and the Washington Post, and even the conservative Breitbart News and black-focused pblication The Root, expressed the rage some felt when a black woman from public housing was replaced by a white venture capitalist — in San Francisco!
How racist. How sexist. How hypocritical and conniving…
Those accusations, and more, were hurled with a muscular arm of righteousness reaching back — way back — to the 1950s mass evictions of black San Franciscans during the “urban renewal” of the Western Addition, to the recent grief after the San Francisco Police Department shot and killed Mario Woods, and landed at the feet of self-described progressive supervisors who sought to oust The City’s first black woman mayor.
“San Francisco dislikes Black women so much that they appointed a white conservative to be the caretaker mayor,” opined Alicia Garza, a co-founder of the Black Lives Matter movement, on Twitter…
“I decided I’ve had it up to my neck with the prognosticators. Ultimately, it’s most important we listen to our city’s black women; that’s why only those who identify as black women are quoted hereafter…Some women who know Breed felt passionately she was robbed of her mayorship. Others believed her own record damned her.”... (more)
Please follow the link and voice you opinions at the source if you can.
Plutocrat Ron Conway tried to bully the supervisors to get his way — and it backfired
How did Mark Farrell, one of the most conservative members of the Board of Supes, wind up with the support of progressives to become interim mayor? How did Jeff Sheehy, who has generally voted with the moderates, and who initially supported London Breed, wind up being the swing vote for Farrell?
You can thank Ron Conway – and the fact that Breed was reluctant initially to give up her D5 seat to take the interim job…(more)
In a 6-3 vote, members of the Board of Supervisors voted last night to make Mark Farrell San Francisco’s interim mayor.
Farrell, who represented District 2, will occupy the mayor’s office until the June 5th special election and will be permitted to appoint his successor.
Since the death of Mayor Ed Lee on December 12th, London Breed served as acting mayor and president of the Board of Supervisors, but Supervisor Aaron Peskin called for the vote to emphasize “the importance of a separation of powers in city government,” according to the Chronicle.
Peskin said Breed’s twin roles gave her the right to appoint people to various commissions and boards and would give her an unfair advantage in the special election. To redistribute power, Peskin and others sought to appoint a caretaker mayor… (more)
Lots of comments and concerns over how to handle the duel rolls and the outside meddling by tech money in the election process got us to this point. Hopefully London Breed will be able to separate herself from the unwelcome advances of the tech community and money to operate a clean campaign. Hopefully the tech moguls will learn from this and stay out of future elections.