BY: Gary W. Moody
July 18, 2000

Editor:

Congratulations and many thanks for the fine piece of investigative journalism by Susan Sward, "The House that Joe Built." My only criticism is that, amongst the wealth of information, the article lacked detail on the events of August 9, 1999, when the RBA rioted in City Hall. If I may, I'd like to mention that a more detailed account can be found in the SFWeekly.com archives, in George Cothran's August 25, 1999 column. I was involved in the City Hall fracas, and I believe it's very important that as many people as possible know what happened that day, when democracy was
choked in San Francisco.

Monday's article raises many questions which require answers from politicians, government officials, and the media. It's strange that these common-sense questions have not been raised in the debate over live-work development since Willie Brown became Mayor. First, let's review the facts.

The original intention of live-work, as the article stated, was affordable housing for artists. For an official definition of live-work, refer to the Department of Public Works' Customer Service Action Plan, 9/96-8/99, Mission Bay & Potrero Hill section, page 11. Official, precise, and formulated directly from City Code. These codes have not changed, nor do any subsequent actions supersede them. And there is no "loophole" which allows housework to make a luxury loft condo "live-work." If there was, why would the Department of Building Inspection issue building permits, dated May 13 2000, to Walter Wong, Frank Chiu's good buddy and the guy who provided campaign office space for Willie Brown last year, stating "artist live/work" as the building use (#910291, 595 Mariposa; #910287, 2002 3rd St.)?

If developers are claiming that these buildings are for "live-work," and these claims are verifiably false, what are we to conclude? Does merely attaching the words "live-work" to the front of a building make the structure legitimate? If the developers' claims are phony, may we also use the term fraud? Doesn't that give rise to questions of law? For example, if these developers make claims, which are fraudulent, in order to receive a tax reduction, as is the case with the school tax, isn't this tax fraud?

If Planning and DBI officials are permitting these structures even if they're scams, or if they in any way conflict with City Code, does the fact that they were nevertheless permitted make them legal structures? Planning Code Sec. 176 states: "Should any permit or license have been issued that
was not then in conformity with the provisions of this Code, such permit or license shall be null and void." If the permits for the structure are actually null and void, then isn't that structure illegal, and shouldn't it be demolished? What about the people who have bought these 1000 or so dubious properties at, say, an average of 500 grand apiece? Who is liable for their losses? The developers, or the realtors, or the City of San Francisco (taxpayers)? What about loans that banks have made, mortgages that condo buyers have obtained? What about the Federal entities that back these funds? And you say that there are 3600 more units lined up? Should there be any question that these developments are scams? That opinion has been stated by the Mayor's Office of Housing. I attended meetings of the MOH's Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Advisory Committee, and found the following information in a preliminary draft of the San Francisco 2000 Consolidated Plan: "The 1990 Residence Element identified a special need for 7,000 affordable... live/work units for artists, who tend to have very low incomes... None of this need is being met by the current market-driven development of loft units called "live-work" in the City... Clearly, low-income artists will not be occupying these units."

The Consolidated Plan is prepared as a requirement of Federal law in order for the City to receive assistance from HUD. The law specifically requires such information to be reported to HUD. However, the above information, insufficient as it was, was not included in the final draft given to HUD, nor has any such information ever been included in reports to HUD during the Brown administration. I discovered this by first asking myself the common-sense questions: since San Francisco receives large amounts of Federal aid, what are its obligations to Federal agencies in order to receive such aid? Does live-work conflict with San Francisco's obligations under Federal law? What about State law? If San Francisco is asking for assistance for housing or education, while at the same time allowing cronies of the Mayor and other politicians to pull a major scam in order to skim off funds which they are supposed to be contributing, aren't taxpayers being ripped off? Fleeced? Is there some kind of laundering operation going on, where Federal and State aid pours in, partially replacing millions of dollars ripped off by cronies, part of which is kicked back to Democratic politicians and Party coffers?

And if there are issues of local, State, or Federal laws, are we talking about actual, dare I say it, crime? And if there is crime involved in live-work development, and this activity is coordinated by various parties, or conspirators, an enterprise or organization, what are we to call it? Especially if threats, intimidation, mob violence, and payoffs are involved? Dare we call it organized crime?

And finally, if a whole host of Democratic Party politicians such as, just to name a few, Terence Hallinan, Mabel Teng, Jerry Brown, and Willie Brown, are involved with Joe O'Donoghue, and if O'Donoghue is also giving money to Gray Davis, Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton, and if we are to picture him sitting next to President Bill Clinton at a banquet, what does this say about the Democratic Party? Is the Democratic Party benefitting from live-work development? Apparently so! And if this development involves criminal activity, possibly racketeering, doesn't this therefore involve the Democratic Party in that crime and racketeering? Is the Democratic Party profiting from the plight of San Francisco's poor, from the desperation of those seeking the affordable housing which is being thwarted, from our undereducated schoolkids and underpaid teachers? And are local opponents and activists and gadflys not raising these questions or seeking relief in the courts because they don't want to hurt the Democratic Party, particularly in an election year? Or do they have some other mysterious agenda which keeps them from taking effective action?

Not that I'm making any accusations here. Just asking a few questions. Many remain to be asked.

Sincerely,
Gary W. Moody.