Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Will the PAC and Redevelopment move us out?
Time to protect our low income. poor, seniors, and people of color who in many cases are defensless against the big greedy developers. Who's only motive is profit without a concern for the community. Hand in hand with Planning and the Redevelopment Agency they would seperate and drive out the defensless gentrifing the area creating a new Fillmore. No MORE FILLMORES.
Time for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to stop the headaches and anxiety of the Bay View Hunters Point community over the decisions and plans of the Redevelopment Agency and its illegal Project Area Committee, or PAC.
Time to put Redevelopment under the control of our elected Board of Supervisors.
Right now the PAC, along with the Redevelopment Agency, wants to modify the Hunters Point Project Area to add an additional 1,600 acres to its current size of 137 acres, for a sum total of 1,737 acres. This is most of Bay View Hunters Point.
The definition of a project area is a blighted area that can be bulldozed and redeveloped. Redevelopment has the power of eminent domain over a project area. And if we are not careful – if we do not stop Redevelopment from declaring Bay View Hunters Point a project area - it could be imminent domain.
So if Redevelopment has its way and you live in that community, be prepared to be moved if the agency wants you out. Remember the Fillmore, where many people had only a month to leave their homes.
Look at the history of outrageous shenanigans by the PAC and the Redevelopment Agency. The Redevelopment Agency has been under investigation by the FBI for violations of the law. The City Ethics Commission is also investigating Redevelopment - for ethics violations. (See “Ethics panel eyes redevelopment role in Hunters Point” in the San Francisco Chronicle March 17, 2003.)
In addition, there is an ongoing legal action in regards to the Dec. 2 meeting of the Redevelopment Commission at City Hall, where the community was intentionally kept out and there were numerous violations of the Open Meetings Law and the Brown Act, as covered in the SF Bay View articles, “Redevelopment planning land grab of Shipyard and all Hunters Point,” published Nov. 26, 2003, and “Community barred from Redevelopment Commission meeting,” published Dec. 10.
Now we have confirmation that the Bay View Hunters Point PAC, which is supposed to represent the community as an arm of Redevelopment, has violated the Redevelopment Agency rules on elections. In a recent PAC meeting, Redevelopment’s own attorneys posted the following notice: “The PAC Election of February 16th 2004 Was Illegal and Improper.”
They found four serious violations of elections procedure and concluded: “For these reasons, the election should be declared null and void and reheld in accordance with the time honored procedure for all elections, that is; Nominations first, discussion, then a vote.”
My question is what took the Redevelopment Agency so long to advise the PAC that their elections were illegal? Did it just occur to them now? Why have they been silent all these years? The community has been incensed over that same issue in each year following the first PAC election in 1997.
The community has argued that the PAC’s outreach is not reaching them. There was the same problem with a lack of outreach by the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Shipyard, which also reports to the Redevelopment Agency.
Could it be that Redevelopment doesn’t really want the community to be informed and involved? On Dec. 2, when Redevelopment was rushing to give away the Hunters Point Shipyard to the nation’s largest homebuilder by approving a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with the Lennar Corp. – a move the community vehemently opposes - the community was locked out of the meeting.
Seems like time for the Board of Supervisors to step in and take control of the Redevelopment Agency for accountability reasons. In nearly every other county in California, the Redevelopment Agency is under the control of its Supervisors. It should be that way here. What’s happening instead is San Francisco Redevelopment is a law unto itself, accountable to nobody.
The public wants accountability, and who better than our elected officials to see to that. They are accountable to us.
The PAC and the CAC, even if they did better outreach and had proper elections, do not have the power to stop the Redevelopment Commission. Both the PAC and the CAC are “passive bodies,” meaning they have no authority to make a decision, only to make recommendations to the Redevelopment Commission, which is an “active body,” to address and adopt as it sees fit.
In the case of the Dec. 2 meeting, the Redevelopment Commission saw the recommendations of the CAC, but they still opted for adopting the agency staff report over the objections of the CAC.
Now you be the judge. If the PAC, which hasn’t had a legal election since 1997, makes a recommendation to the Redevelopment Commission to declare the whole community a blighted project area, your home or business could fall under eminent domain. So best to have your bags packed and nearby. You may be moving out just as the people of the Fillmore had to move.
Call and engage your Supervisors in a discussion of your concerns. Tell them you want the Redevelopment Agency held accountable to them, and you want both the PAC and the CAC to do community outreach so your voice can be heard.
After all, at the moment, it is your community. But it won’t be that way long if you don’t take action.
Phone numbers of all the Supervisors are in the blue “Government Listings” section at the front of your phone book
Time to put Redevelopment under the control of our elected Board of Supervisors.
Right now the PAC, along with the Redevelopment Agency, wants to modify the Hunters Point Project Area to add an additional 1,600 acres to its current size of 137 acres, for a sum total of 1,737 acres. This is most of Bay View Hunters Point.
The definition of a project area is a blighted area that can be bulldozed and redeveloped. Redevelopment has the power of eminent domain over a project area. And if we are not careful – if we do not stop Redevelopment from declaring Bay View Hunters Point a project area - it could be imminent domain.
So if Redevelopment has its way and you live in that community, be prepared to be moved if the agency wants you out. Remember the Fillmore, where many people had only a month to leave their homes.
Look at the history of outrageous shenanigans by the PAC and the Redevelopment Agency. The Redevelopment Agency has been under investigation by the FBI for violations of the law. The City Ethics Commission is also investigating Redevelopment - for ethics violations. (See “Ethics panel eyes redevelopment role in Hunters Point” in the San Francisco Chronicle March 17, 2003.)
In addition, there is an ongoing legal action in regards to the Dec. 2 meeting of the Redevelopment Commission at City Hall, where the community was intentionally kept out and there were numerous violations of the Open Meetings Law and the Brown Act, as covered in the SF Bay View articles, “Redevelopment planning land grab of Shipyard and all Hunters Point,” published Nov. 26, 2003, and “Community barred from Redevelopment Commission meeting,” published Dec. 10.
Now we have confirmation that the Bay View Hunters Point PAC, which is supposed to represent the community as an arm of Redevelopment, has violated the Redevelopment Agency rules on elections. In a recent PAC meeting, Redevelopment’s own attorneys posted the following notice: “The PAC Election of February 16th 2004 Was Illegal and Improper.”
They found four serious violations of elections procedure and concluded: “For these reasons, the election should be declared null and void and reheld in accordance with the time honored procedure for all elections, that is; Nominations first, discussion, then a vote.”
My question is what took the Redevelopment Agency so long to advise the PAC that their elections were illegal? Did it just occur to them now? Why have they been silent all these years? The community has been incensed over that same issue in each year following the first PAC election in 1997.
The community has argued that the PAC’s outreach is not reaching them. There was the same problem with a lack of outreach by the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Shipyard, which also reports to the Redevelopment Agency.
Could it be that Redevelopment doesn’t really want the community to be informed and involved? On Dec. 2, when Redevelopment was rushing to give away the Hunters Point Shipyard to the nation’s largest homebuilder by approving a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with the Lennar Corp. – a move the community vehemently opposes - the community was locked out of the meeting.
Seems like time for the Board of Supervisors to step in and take control of the Redevelopment Agency for accountability reasons. In nearly every other county in California, the Redevelopment Agency is under the control of its Supervisors. It should be that way here. What’s happening instead is San Francisco Redevelopment is a law unto itself, accountable to nobody.
The public wants accountability, and who better than our elected officials to see to that. They are accountable to us.
The PAC and the CAC, even if they did better outreach and had proper elections, do not have the power to stop the Redevelopment Commission. Both the PAC and the CAC are “passive bodies,” meaning they have no authority to make a decision, only to make recommendations to the Redevelopment Commission, which is an “active body,” to address and adopt as it sees fit.
In the case of the Dec. 2 meeting, the Redevelopment Commission saw the recommendations of the CAC, but they still opted for adopting the agency staff report over the objections of the CAC.
Now you be the judge. If the PAC, which hasn’t had a legal election since 1997, makes a recommendation to the Redevelopment Commission to declare the whole community a blighted project area, your home or business could fall under eminent domain. So best to have your bags packed and nearby. You may be moving out just as the people of the Fillmore had to move.
Call and engage your Supervisors in a discussion of your concerns. Tell them you want the Redevelopment Agency held accountable to them, and you want both the PAC and the CAC to do community outreach so your voice can be heard.
After all, at the moment, it is your community. But it won’t be that way long if you don’t take action.
Phone numbers of all the Supervisors are in the blue “Government Listings” section at the front of your phone book
For more information:
http://www.sfbayview.com/031004/redevelopm...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
by Umar ben-Ivan Lee
Yesterday before work I read a copy of Metro which is a new yuppie oriented publication aimed at the Sex in the City/ I waste my daddies money in Manhattan crowd.
It is one of those publications that you only read when you are bored on the subway or like me bored waiting for the workday to begin. As I flipped the pages I realized that this was a publication not meant for me or the majority of New Yorkers. This is a publication like many others of its kind that is meant for the young and wanna-be young so-called hipsters who populate the cities endless coffee shops, trendy eateries, s and m clubs and other odd and or overpriced places.
What struck my eye was an editorial that was written in an opinion section that defended gentrification. The article was written by a young man who lived in Crown Heights and stated that gentrification was a natural and good thing and that it was too bad that some people would be displaced. One thing I did appreciate was the fact that the writer was honest and that he told his fellow yuppies and trust-fund babies that they should not think they are not part of gentrification rather they should accept it and that is a very important point.
If you are moving into a predominantly minority area that has been made "safe" by a few earlier white faces and your parents or family money is helping pay your rent you are a gentrifier. If you are seeking to change the culture of that area like we are seeing in Red Hook, Crown Heights and Bushwick you are a gentrifier and cultural imperialist. It does not matter if you are a liberal or a leftist; a gentrifier is a gentrifier. Let the white left take responsibility because gentrification has belonged almost exclusively to them.
Gentrifiers are a section of the white left that fancy themselves as liberal or even further to the left except when it comes to their own lives and their neighbors and in that case ethnic cleansing is their policy. For them progressive values are limited to gay rights, abortion, white feminism, sexual fetishes, tofu and the need for cities to be reclaimed by whites. They have no place for the needs of the poor, homeless, victims of the prison industrial complex, racial justice and other needs in Americas cities. They will march for the poor of Iraq, and I will march with them, but will call the police in ten seconds if they see two black men talking in front of their home. They will be activists until they are called upon for personal sacrifice and they have a lifestyle that is short on sacrifice. To them living in a building with interesting architecture is more valuable than affordable housing for the masses.
New York and Americas other great cities have always been home to the poor, working class, immigrants and families, but not in the cultural liberal gentrifies world. They see a future city that is not child friendly, where they are not burdened to pay for schools for black and Latino children. They see a city populated by the young, wealthy, singles, gay couples and married couples with either no children or one child that the couple probably had in their forties or imported from China because they were too damn lazy to have one the natural way.
An anthropologist once said that the future of Americas cities will look like the apartheid-era South Africa were the wealthy whites, and wanna-be whites as Walter Fauntrouy would say, live in the city and the workers and minorities live in townships outside of the city and come in to serve the wealthy and get the hell out before dark. After all they need someone to serve the latte and tofu, to sell the bottled water, to sweep the floors at the independent book stores, to clean the cum of the floor at art house move theaters and to take care of the elderly and children of the left-elite while they are out catching the latest installment of The Vagina Monologues.