Politics

OMG -- Gav loves the press!

2009-11-06T23:07:08Z

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.

PG&E news roundup: Discounts for energy hogs, new power plants in poor communities, and the CEO’s incredible expanding pension

2009-11-06T23:06:10Z

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.

Pacific Environment, one of three San Francisco nonprofits to issue a letter of protest, submitted to the CPUC that the utility’s proposal to build new fossil fuel powered plants conflicts with the state’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Communities for a Better Environment and Californians for Renewable Energy have also raised concerns about the proposals.

Pacific Environment’s letter also charged that the company failed to consider the environmental justice implications of building two new power plants in an area already overburdened by pollution.

Ten existing power plants in Contra Costa County, where the facilities would be sited, already account for 56 percent of the total power generated in Bay Area counties, according to data from the California Energy Commission. (That’s not counting the refineries and chemical manufacturing plants in the area, Pacific Environment points out.)

“These facilities are proposed to be sited in low-income and minority communities,” according to the letter. “A significant percentage of the residents in those cities live below the federal poverty line. … These communities are disproportionately impacted by illnesses known to be related to exposure to industrial pollution. For instance, in Contra Costa County, the hospitalization rate due to asthma for African American children is almost five times that of Caucasian children.”

On a different front, PG&E earned a mention in a Wall Street Journal story that ran this week pointing out a rise in executive salaries.

WSJ spotlighted the company’s CEO, Peter Darbee, as a beneficiary of the controversial practice of awarding corporate executives with additional years of service in order to boost their retirement earnings. Darbee was awarded an additional five years of service in 2008, bumping up his pension to $5.2 million from $3.8 million -- a 38 percent rise. Although he seemingly aged half a decade all at once, the chief executive probably feels like a million bucks.

The Guardian placed a call to PG&E yesterday, but did not receive a response.

Newspapers and civic pride stand or fall together

2009-11-06T21:53:17Z

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 contrast, the Chronicle has tried to reflect the myopic and schizophrenic values of myriad Bay Area suburbs, a decision that I think is closely tied to its downfall. For example, the columnist that the Chronicle puts forth as the voice of San Francisco is C.W. Nevius, a former sports writer who lives in Walnut Creek and seems to have little understanding of the city’s political dynamics.

On its editorial page and in many of its news stories, the Chronicle actually gives credence to ridiculous arguments that we need to cut taxes and regulations to keep corporations and shoppers from bypassing us in favor of competing regional cities – as if the great city of St. Francis has any real competitors. Puh-leeze!

Newspapers should celebrate a place and its people and strive to be their voice, or to be the echo chamber that reflects the multitude of voices in this wonderfully diverse city. Instead, the Chronicle caters to the carping Neanderthals that populate its blog comment pages, people that regularly denigrate San Francisco. Or they try to define the city by the values of multi-generational westside residents or the Chamber of Commerce, rather than those who choose to live in and shape the city as it exists today.

There is great value in newspapers that are organically birthed by the city they call home. That was how most newspapers began, Rodriguez points out, and why they thrived for more than a century. And when they sold out to multinational conglomerations on the other side of the country, like Hearst, it’s why they die.

Another local media outlet, McSweeney’s Magazine, which is put out by the civic- and literary-minded folks over at 826 Valencia, does recognize the values of newspapers and civic pride. That’s why they’ve been hard at work on a broadsheet newspaper, San Francisco Panorama, that will hit the streets at the end of the month.

Unfortunately, it’s a one-shot deal. That’s too bad, because it’s getting awfully lonely as perhaps the last newspaper in town that sees its core mission as reflects San Francisco’s values and helping the city come together around a common purpose.

The mayor's future

2009-11-06T21:07:16Z

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).

Gavin's long honeymoon is way over

2009-11-06T20:26:03Z

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.

Maine, California and the age factor

2009-11-06T20:04:00Z

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.

“We demand equality!”

2009-11-06T00:46:08Z

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.

Plenty of blame was laid at our politicians’ feet—particularly President Barack Obama, who many felt hadn’t made same-sex marriage enough of a national priority. “Hey Obama, can’t you see, we demand equality,” chanted the crowd.

The organizers of the rally are a grassroots organization known as One Fight, One Struggle. According to organizer Ashley Simmons, their goal is for a full civil rights bill for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender individuals, which she said “is necessary to have equality in this way.”

The speakers echoed this sentiment. One speaker, who would be taken away by police, shouted out, “How fucking dare you take rights away from us!”

But the rally was also about equality for all—encompassing such issues as health care reform and affordable housing. “Oppression is still around in this country,” Simmons told the Guardian.

For some in the crowd, the rally was also about the lack of political awareness in San Francisco’s gay community. According to demonstrator Frank Capley-Alfano, many in the community are complacent and apathetic to the equality issue. “No one wants to say it. They turn a blind eye, but know it’s true,” he said.

And to raise further awareness, the small rally cloistered at the plaza marched down the Castro, chanting for people to get out of the bars and gyms and into the streets. When the march got to the intersection of 18th and Castro, demonstrators stopped and blocked traffic at all four corners. “If we have to wait, so do the cars,” they chanted. Others fearing trouble with the cops took the sidewalks.

One thing organizers made clear to demonstrators—this wasn’t going to get violent. And it didn’t.

When San Francisco police arrived, the organizers made a peaceful deal with the sergeant. Fifteen minutes and they’d clear the intersection, Sgt. Matt Inocencio told us of the agreement. But two demonstrators made a stand and sat down on the street when time was up. Cops later took them away. According to Sgt. Chuck Limbert at the Mission police station, the two demonstrators were cited and released. They have been ordered to appear in court next month.

Limbert said that reports indicate that it was overall a peaceful demonstration. Despite the minor incident, the rally continued on the street corner next to the Bank of America. Organizer Ragina Johnson said that on the whole the rally had a “good turnout.”

One Struggle, One Fight will meet again at 7 p.m. tonight at the Unitarian Universalist Church (1187 Franklin Street) to further discuss the equality issue.

Newsom and the next chapter

2009-11-04T23:29:22Z

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?

Inside Oaksterdam University

2009-11-04T20:58:10Z

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.

The Maine event (and rally)

2009-11-04T20:01:39Z

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)

SF leaders blew it on taxes

2009-11-04T19:22:07Z

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.

Okay, the SF results are in

2009-11-04T05:36:31Z

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.

Same sex marriage in trouble in Maine

2009-11-04T05:03:33Z

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.

Uh oh, Maine's getting scary

2009-11-04T04:46:11Z

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.

Okay, we've got numbers

2009-11-04T04:33:56Z

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.