Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
San Francisco denies Black voting rights
Thirty-nine years to the day after the blood of Black martyrs purchased our right to vote, San Francisco – yes, proud, progressive San Francisco, the city whose new mayor made world headlines proclaiming, “Discrimination is wrong!” – intends to deny District 10, home to the City’s Black heartland, boasting the largest Black population of any district by far, where Blacks and Asian-Pacific Islanders are the largest racial groups and people of color altogether are 78 percent of the total district population, the right to elect a supervisor of our choice
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Willie Ratcliff
Aug. 9, 2004 (415) 671-0789
San Francisco denies Black voting rights
On Friday, the 39th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, San Francisco’s director of elections, John Arntz, confirmed that not only is he denying District 10 the right to elect a new supervisor on the Nov. 2 general election ballot, he is denying District 10 the right to elect a new supervisor at all this year. Instead, he says, if the recall of the current supervisor is successful, the mayor will appoint a new supervisor.
Thirty-nine years to the day after the blood of Black martyrs purchased our right to vote, San Francisco – yes, proud, progressive San Francisco, the city whose new mayor made world headlines proclaiming, “Discrimination is wrong!” – intends to deny District 10, home to the City’s Black heartland, boasting the largest Black population of any district by far, where Blacks and Asian-Pacific Islanders are the largest racial groups and people of color altogether are 78 percent of the total district population, the right to elect a supervisor of our choice.
John Arntz and the City whose elections he directs are wrong on all counts. Even former Mayor Willie Brown is taking our new Mayor Newsom to task for usurping the power of the people. In an interview on KALW Thursday, Brown was heard to say it is up to the people and not the mayor to choose a replacement supervisor.
District 10 does have the power to elect a new supervisor on Nov. 2 of this year – both by right and by law. Here are a few of the reasons why. Each reason by itself should be enough to stop the City’s attempted theft of the people’s power.
Reasons why District 10 has the power to elect a new supervisor Nov. 2
Reason No. 1: The Voting Rights Act, which specifically applies its most stringent requirements to San Francisco, along with the Deep South, because of the City’s past infringement of voting rights, prohibits any practice that dilutes the voting strength of people of color or that gives them an unfair chance to elect candidates of their choice.
The City’s intent to call a special election in December instead of putting the recall on the ballot for the Nov. 2 general election, predicted to draw the biggest turnout of any election in decades, is an intent to dilute the voting strength of people of color. And the City’s intent to let the mayor rather than the people of District 10 choose our new supervisor denies people of color, along with all the people of District 10, the chance to elect the candidate of our choice.
Reason No. 2: The recall petition, signed by many thousands more District 10 residents than the 3,900 registered voters required, states in its first sentence that the signers seek the recall of the current supervisor and, in its second sentence, states, “We demand an election of a successor to that office.”
The petition, signed by some 15,000 District 10 residents, explicitly opposes mayoral appointments that deny district self-determination. Among the “grounds for the recall” it lists, the petition criticizes the current supervisor for “promoting creation of a Mayor-appointed development authority” for the Hunters Point Shipyard.
Clearly, petition signers expect that District 10 voters, not the mayor, will choose a new supervisor at the same time they choose whether or not to recall the current supervisor – in exactly the same way that California voters last year chose a new governor at the same time they chose to recall the then current governor.
San Francisco Director of Elections John Arntz approved the legality of the wording of the petition before it was circulated and must have understood the plain meaning of those words: “We demand an election of a successor.” Yet now he interprets the law to require mayoral appointment, not voter election, of a successor supervisor.
Reason No. 3: John Arntz’ Department of Elections, in its conduct relating to the District 10 recall, has raised the specter of gross negligence, if not fraud. Because District 10 is home to San Francisco’s Black heartland and because 78 percent of its residents are people of color, that conduct could be evidence of intent to disenfranchise voters of color. Consider these two examples:
A) After the hard-working signature gatherers pushed themselves relentlessly to reach their goal in only a few days more than two months, the Elections Department, three weeks after we submitted the signatures, still had not performed even a random sampling to see if they are sufficient. Because we had checked the signatures against the City’s Master Voter File before submitting them, we believe that a random sampling will show that they are sufficient under the law to put the recall on the ballot.
B) The Master Voter File we were given by the Elections Department when we began gathering signatures in mid-May was dated March 23, 2004. We pointed out to the staff that such an old file denied us knowledge of recent registrations, yet the staff refused our repeated requests for an up-to-date file until June 29.
The March 23 file was not only out of date, it was wrong. One team of signature gatherers, who had printed out the entire file so they would know exactly which District 10 residents were already registered to vote, were shocked to find that the March 23 file disenfranchised many Black voters. In some solidly Black sections of Hunters Point, they found that the file showed the correct first names and addresses of registered voters, but the last names were wrong.
One elderly Black woman, for example, who said she had voted regularly for decades, was given a Chinese last name on the Elections Department’s March 23 Master Voter File. In another family, well known for its political activism, all of the several registered voters in the household were given the wrong last name. Because all these signatures did not agree with the Master Voter File, they had to be disqualified. All these voters were therefore disenfranchised.
What are the City’s legal arguments for denying Black voting rights – and how do we know they’re wrong?
To reach his conclusions, John Arntz is interpreting the City Charter in ways that I believe make a mockery of the voters’ intent when they approved the Charter and its amendments. While the City Attorney and other lawyers are examining the issues, let me lay out the arguments for you to decide.
In a handout called “Procedures for the Recall of Local Officials” with his name in big letters at the top, Arntz says, “Except where specifically provided in the San Francisco Charter, recalls are governed by the California Elections Code.” Arntz’ handout contains sections from the City Charter. A companion handout, “Procedure for Recalling State and Local Officials,” prepared by the Secretary of State’s office, contains sections of state law.
On the issue of whether the recall should be placed on the Nov. 2 general election ballot or a special election called, the Charter says, “Upon certifying the sufficiency of the recall petition’s signatures, the Director of Elections shall immediately call a special municipal election on the recall, to be held not less than 105 nor more than 120 days from the date of its calling unless it is within 105 days of a general municipal or statewide election, in which event the recall shall be submitted at such general municipal or statewide election.”
When voters approved that wording, I think they believed it means what it plainly says, that a recall is decided in a general election, rather than a special election, if a general election is coming up within 105 days. The Nov. 2 general election is coming up within 105 days. And besides, it makes sense to avoid a special election whenever possible; a special election is said to cost nearly a million dollars.
Also, putting the recall on the Nov. 2 general election ballot gives the Elections Department the 30 days they’re entitled to for “certifying the sufficiency of the recall petition’s signatures” before the ballot is finalized. The 30 days are up next week, the same week as the filing deadline for District 5 candidates. The Nov. 2 ballot can’t be finalized until next week, so the Elections Department has no reason not to include the recall on that ballot.
On the issue of whether a new supervisor should be chosen by the mayor or District 10 voters if the recall is successful, John Arntz points to a section in a different article of the City Charter than the sections covering recall. The section he points to is entitled “Vacancies.” It says: “If the office of … Member of the Board of Supervisors … becomes vacant because of death, resignation, recall, permanent disability, or the inability of the respective officer to otherwise carry out the responsibilities of the office, the Mayor shall appoint an individual qualified to fill the vacancy under this Charter and state laws.”
But the only way a recall could create a vacancy is if no one runs to replace the recalled official. Because the City Charter does not specify how a recall election should be conducted, state law applies. State law says, in section 11320 of the California Constitution, which applies to both state and local office-holders: “At the election, voters will decide whether or not to recall the officer and, if there is a candidate, will also choose a successor if the recall is successful.”
Californians are very familiar with that law, having used it less than a year ago to elect a new governor at the same time they recalled the old governor. In District 10, all the thousands of residents who signed the recall petition invoked that law when they signed the petition’s statement saying, “We demand an election of a successor to that office.”
In all the media coverage of the recall, it’s clear from the speculation about who will run that everyone expects the simultaneous election of a successor. More importantly, the people of District 10 were reluctant to sign the petition – citing their fear that a recall would leave the Board of Supervisors with no Black member – until they were sure that a strong Black candidate would be on the ballot to succeed the current supervisor.
Apparently, no one but John Arntz – and, perhaps, the mayor – dreamed that a recalled supervisor would be replaced by the mayor and not by the people. And Arntz waited until the 39th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act to drop that bombshell on recall proponents.
San Francisco needs the Voting Rights Act – needs to apply its legal mandate and to remember its history, the heroic sacrifices made just 39 years ago to forevermore prevent Black disenfranchisement. The U.S. Department of Justice, in its “Introduction to Federal Voting Rights Laws,” reports it took the “murder of voting-rights activists …, other acts of violence and terrorism … (and) the unprovoked attack on March 7, 1965, by state troopers on peaceful marchers crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama,” to persuade the president and Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act.
The Department of Justice goes on to say that “only one-third of all African Americans of voting age were on the registration rolls in the specially covered states” when the Voting Rights Act was signed. That’s about the same proportion we found were registered in District 10. San Francisco needs the Voting Rights Act.
The Department of Justice goes on to say that the Voting Rights Act is “a vehicle for challenging discriminatory election methods such as at-large elections.” On Friday, the 39th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, Rachel Gordon wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle, “Mayor Gavin Newsom took another swipe this week at the city’s system of electing supervisors by district rather than citywide.” San Francisco needs the Voting Rights Act.
I am calling on all people of good will to urge Mayor Newsom and Elections Director Arntz to prevent the disenfranchisement of all District 10 voters and specifically Blacks and other people of color, who are protected under the Voting Rights Act. You can leave a message for the mayor at (415) 554-6141 and for the elections director at (415) 554-4375.
Also, the recall is on the agenda for the next Elections Commission meeting, and I urge everyone to attend. The meeting will be held Wednesday, Aug. 18, 7 p.m., in Room 408 on the fourth floor of City Hall.
As I’ve said many times before and as everyone in District 10 knows, our problems can’t wait. They are problems of life and death, and they need the attention of a strong, effective District 10 supervisor. Just as the martyrs of 39 years ago persuaded the president and Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act, let us persuade San Francisco’s mayor and elections director to put the District 10 recall and the simultaneous election of a successor on the Nov. 2 ballot.
Aug. 9, 2004 (415) 671-0789
San Francisco denies Black voting rights
On Friday, the 39th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, San Francisco’s director of elections, John Arntz, confirmed that not only is he denying District 10 the right to elect a new supervisor on the Nov. 2 general election ballot, he is denying District 10 the right to elect a new supervisor at all this year. Instead, he says, if the recall of the current supervisor is successful, the mayor will appoint a new supervisor.
Thirty-nine years to the day after the blood of Black martyrs purchased our right to vote, San Francisco – yes, proud, progressive San Francisco, the city whose new mayor made world headlines proclaiming, “Discrimination is wrong!” – intends to deny District 10, home to the City’s Black heartland, boasting the largest Black population of any district by far, where Blacks and Asian-Pacific Islanders are the largest racial groups and people of color altogether are 78 percent of the total district population, the right to elect a supervisor of our choice.
John Arntz and the City whose elections he directs are wrong on all counts. Even former Mayor Willie Brown is taking our new Mayor Newsom to task for usurping the power of the people. In an interview on KALW Thursday, Brown was heard to say it is up to the people and not the mayor to choose a replacement supervisor.
District 10 does have the power to elect a new supervisor on Nov. 2 of this year – both by right and by law. Here are a few of the reasons why. Each reason by itself should be enough to stop the City’s attempted theft of the people’s power.
Reasons why District 10 has the power to elect a new supervisor Nov. 2
Reason No. 1: The Voting Rights Act, which specifically applies its most stringent requirements to San Francisco, along with the Deep South, because of the City’s past infringement of voting rights, prohibits any practice that dilutes the voting strength of people of color or that gives them an unfair chance to elect candidates of their choice.
The City’s intent to call a special election in December instead of putting the recall on the ballot for the Nov. 2 general election, predicted to draw the biggest turnout of any election in decades, is an intent to dilute the voting strength of people of color. And the City’s intent to let the mayor rather than the people of District 10 choose our new supervisor denies people of color, along with all the people of District 10, the chance to elect the candidate of our choice.
Reason No. 2: The recall petition, signed by many thousands more District 10 residents than the 3,900 registered voters required, states in its first sentence that the signers seek the recall of the current supervisor and, in its second sentence, states, “We demand an election of a successor to that office.”
The petition, signed by some 15,000 District 10 residents, explicitly opposes mayoral appointments that deny district self-determination. Among the “grounds for the recall” it lists, the petition criticizes the current supervisor for “promoting creation of a Mayor-appointed development authority” for the Hunters Point Shipyard.
Clearly, petition signers expect that District 10 voters, not the mayor, will choose a new supervisor at the same time they choose whether or not to recall the current supervisor – in exactly the same way that California voters last year chose a new governor at the same time they chose to recall the then current governor.
San Francisco Director of Elections John Arntz approved the legality of the wording of the petition before it was circulated and must have understood the plain meaning of those words: “We demand an election of a successor.” Yet now he interprets the law to require mayoral appointment, not voter election, of a successor supervisor.
Reason No. 3: John Arntz’ Department of Elections, in its conduct relating to the District 10 recall, has raised the specter of gross negligence, if not fraud. Because District 10 is home to San Francisco’s Black heartland and because 78 percent of its residents are people of color, that conduct could be evidence of intent to disenfranchise voters of color. Consider these two examples:
A) After the hard-working signature gatherers pushed themselves relentlessly to reach their goal in only a few days more than two months, the Elections Department, three weeks after we submitted the signatures, still had not performed even a random sampling to see if they are sufficient. Because we had checked the signatures against the City’s Master Voter File before submitting them, we believe that a random sampling will show that they are sufficient under the law to put the recall on the ballot.
B) The Master Voter File we were given by the Elections Department when we began gathering signatures in mid-May was dated March 23, 2004. We pointed out to the staff that such an old file denied us knowledge of recent registrations, yet the staff refused our repeated requests for an up-to-date file until June 29.
The March 23 file was not only out of date, it was wrong. One team of signature gatherers, who had printed out the entire file so they would know exactly which District 10 residents were already registered to vote, were shocked to find that the March 23 file disenfranchised many Black voters. In some solidly Black sections of Hunters Point, they found that the file showed the correct first names and addresses of registered voters, but the last names were wrong.
One elderly Black woman, for example, who said she had voted regularly for decades, was given a Chinese last name on the Elections Department’s March 23 Master Voter File. In another family, well known for its political activism, all of the several registered voters in the household were given the wrong last name. Because all these signatures did not agree with the Master Voter File, they had to be disqualified. All these voters were therefore disenfranchised.
What are the City’s legal arguments for denying Black voting rights – and how do we know they’re wrong?
To reach his conclusions, John Arntz is interpreting the City Charter in ways that I believe make a mockery of the voters’ intent when they approved the Charter and its amendments. While the City Attorney and other lawyers are examining the issues, let me lay out the arguments for you to decide.
In a handout called “Procedures for the Recall of Local Officials” with his name in big letters at the top, Arntz says, “Except where specifically provided in the San Francisco Charter, recalls are governed by the California Elections Code.” Arntz’ handout contains sections from the City Charter. A companion handout, “Procedure for Recalling State and Local Officials,” prepared by the Secretary of State’s office, contains sections of state law.
On the issue of whether the recall should be placed on the Nov. 2 general election ballot or a special election called, the Charter says, “Upon certifying the sufficiency of the recall petition’s signatures, the Director of Elections shall immediately call a special municipal election on the recall, to be held not less than 105 nor more than 120 days from the date of its calling unless it is within 105 days of a general municipal or statewide election, in which event the recall shall be submitted at such general municipal or statewide election.”
When voters approved that wording, I think they believed it means what it plainly says, that a recall is decided in a general election, rather than a special election, if a general election is coming up within 105 days. The Nov. 2 general election is coming up within 105 days. And besides, it makes sense to avoid a special election whenever possible; a special election is said to cost nearly a million dollars.
Also, putting the recall on the Nov. 2 general election ballot gives the Elections Department the 30 days they’re entitled to for “certifying the sufficiency of the recall petition’s signatures” before the ballot is finalized. The 30 days are up next week, the same week as the filing deadline for District 5 candidates. The Nov. 2 ballot can’t be finalized until next week, so the Elections Department has no reason not to include the recall on that ballot.
On the issue of whether a new supervisor should be chosen by the mayor or District 10 voters if the recall is successful, John Arntz points to a section in a different article of the City Charter than the sections covering recall. The section he points to is entitled “Vacancies.” It says: “If the office of … Member of the Board of Supervisors … becomes vacant because of death, resignation, recall, permanent disability, or the inability of the respective officer to otherwise carry out the responsibilities of the office, the Mayor shall appoint an individual qualified to fill the vacancy under this Charter and state laws.”
But the only way a recall could create a vacancy is if no one runs to replace the recalled official. Because the City Charter does not specify how a recall election should be conducted, state law applies. State law says, in section 11320 of the California Constitution, which applies to both state and local office-holders: “At the election, voters will decide whether or not to recall the officer and, if there is a candidate, will also choose a successor if the recall is successful.”
Californians are very familiar with that law, having used it less than a year ago to elect a new governor at the same time they recalled the old governor. In District 10, all the thousands of residents who signed the recall petition invoked that law when they signed the petition’s statement saying, “We demand an election of a successor to that office.”
In all the media coverage of the recall, it’s clear from the speculation about who will run that everyone expects the simultaneous election of a successor. More importantly, the people of District 10 were reluctant to sign the petition – citing their fear that a recall would leave the Board of Supervisors with no Black member – until they were sure that a strong Black candidate would be on the ballot to succeed the current supervisor.
Apparently, no one but John Arntz – and, perhaps, the mayor – dreamed that a recalled supervisor would be replaced by the mayor and not by the people. And Arntz waited until the 39th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act to drop that bombshell on recall proponents.
San Francisco needs the Voting Rights Act – needs to apply its legal mandate and to remember its history, the heroic sacrifices made just 39 years ago to forevermore prevent Black disenfranchisement. The U.S. Department of Justice, in its “Introduction to Federal Voting Rights Laws,” reports it took the “murder of voting-rights activists …, other acts of violence and terrorism … (and) the unprovoked attack on March 7, 1965, by state troopers on peaceful marchers crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama,” to persuade the president and Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act.
The Department of Justice goes on to say that “only one-third of all African Americans of voting age were on the registration rolls in the specially covered states” when the Voting Rights Act was signed. That’s about the same proportion we found were registered in District 10. San Francisco needs the Voting Rights Act.
The Department of Justice goes on to say that the Voting Rights Act is “a vehicle for challenging discriminatory election methods such as at-large elections.” On Friday, the 39th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, Rachel Gordon wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle, “Mayor Gavin Newsom took another swipe this week at the city’s system of electing supervisors by district rather than citywide.” San Francisco needs the Voting Rights Act.
I am calling on all people of good will to urge Mayor Newsom and Elections Director Arntz to prevent the disenfranchisement of all District 10 voters and specifically Blacks and other people of color, who are protected under the Voting Rights Act. You can leave a message for the mayor at (415) 554-6141 and for the elections director at (415) 554-4375.
Also, the recall is on the agenda for the next Elections Commission meeting, and I urge everyone to attend. The meeting will be held Wednesday, Aug. 18, 7 p.m., in Room 408 on the fourth floor of City Hall.
As I’ve said many times before and as everyone in District 10 knows, our problems can’t wait. They are problems of life and death, and they need the attention of a strong, effective District 10 supervisor. Just as the martyrs of 39 years ago persuaded the president and Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act, let us persuade San Francisco’s mayor and elections director to put the District 10 recall and the simultaneous election of a successor on the Nov. 2 ballot.
For more information:
http://www.sfbayview.com
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
This ain't Florida isn't San Francisco City run by Democrats?
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/08/1691151.php
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/08/1700886.php
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/08/1691151.php
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/08/1700886.php
For more information:
http://Clean up the S.F. Elections Department
You bet SF is city run by Democrats; the party that never let death or lack of legal residence keep anyone from voting! If you give away enough chicken dinners, why you can get people to vote for anything!
The stench of the San Francisco Democratc Party's election fraud goes back for decades, and Willie Brown is a foremost perpetrator of that election fraud. His pretence of concern is just that on this issue; he is not in office, so he is covering up for his protege and fellow anti-rent control "mayor" also installed by election fraud, Gavin Newsom.
In the 1970s, the Democrats used the CIA front, the People's Temple, to commit election fraud for all its candidates, including Willie Brown, who ran for assembly, as well as Jerry Brown in his run for governor and George Moscone, who ran for mayor. Despite being an alleged progressive, Moscone was best known for his horrifying eviction of poor Philipinio workers at the International Hotel on August 4, 1977. For more on the election fraud, se http://www.brasscheck.com/jonestown.
In the 1990s, for Willie Brown's entire 8 illegal years in office as "mayor", the election fraud team consisted of the Democratic Central Committee, the Republican Central Committee, the Chamber of Commerce, the San Francisco Police Department, Walden House, Nation of Islam, Glide Church, TURF, the "labor" bureaucrats who support Brown, A. Phillip Randolph Institute, among others. For more on this election fraud, see http://www.brasscheck.com/stadium
I hope everyone reading this article makes those phone calls to the mayor and the election department. Again, those numbers are 415.554-6141 for the mayor and 415.554.4375 for the elections department. They all have voice mail so that you can leave a message at any time. The election fraud is being committed against all of us, and of course, an injury to one is an injury to all.
In the 1970s, the Democrats used the CIA front, the People's Temple, to commit election fraud for all its candidates, including Willie Brown, who ran for assembly, as well as Jerry Brown in his run for governor and George Moscone, who ran for mayor. Despite being an alleged progressive, Moscone was best known for his horrifying eviction of poor Philipinio workers at the International Hotel on August 4, 1977. For more on the election fraud, se http://www.brasscheck.com/jonestown.
In the 1990s, for Willie Brown's entire 8 illegal years in office as "mayor", the election fraud team consisted of the Democratic Central Committee, the Republican Central Committee, the Chamber of Commerce, the San Francisco Police Department, Walden House, Nation of Islam, Glide Church, TURF, the "labor" bureaucrats who support Brown, A. Phillip Randolph Institute, among others. For more on this election fraud, see http://www.brasscheck.com/stadium
I hope everyone reading this article makes those phone calls to the mayor and the election department. Again, those numbers are 415.554-6141 for the mayor and 415.554.4375 for the elections department. They all have voice mail so that you can leave a message at any time. The election fraud is being committed against all of us, and of course, an injury to one is an injury to all.
For more information:
http://www.brasscheck.com/stadium
SAN FRANCISCO
Supervisor may face recall election -- no disclosure by foes
Her backers believe campaign funded by business interests
Suzanne Herel, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
San Francisco Supervisor Sophie Maxwell may become the first city official in 20 years to face a recall election, but it's unclear exactly who is funding the effort to unseat her -- leading Maxwell and others to suspect that some business interests have their eyes on a district full of development opportunities.
As of Tuesday, the city Ethics Commission had no financial disclosure on file for any group backing the recall campaign. Said Supervisor Aaron Peskin: "When it comes out who's behind the recall, you're going to find out there's a lot of dirty money involved. This is not about a bunch of disgruntled neighbors."
Her critics say that Maxwell, who ran unopposed two years ago, hasn't done enough to address the district's high homicide rate and environmental concerns; hasn't helped constituents get their fair share of jobs on local construction projects such as the Municipal Railway's Third Street light rail; and is generally inaccessible.
One of the recall's main supporters is Mel Washington, president of the Black Chamber of Commerce. He said that gathering the roughly 5,000 signatures on the recall petitions that were filed with the city July 19 cost little money.
"It didn't take much," said Washington, who offered the services of his store, Bay Copy. "The people who have been signing the petitions -- they wanted change."
Washington said that he had spent about $1,000 on the initiative and that not all of the signature-gatherers were paid.
"It was a real community effort," he said.
He has been joined in his quest by Willie Ratcliff, editor of the San Francisco Bay View newspaper, which has been publishing editorials in support of recalling Maxwell, who represents an area that includes Bayview-Hunters Point and Potrero Hill. Ratcliff did not return phone calls seeking comment.
Maxwell said she thought the recall effort was larger than a group of constituents.
"It's not about me," Maxwell said. "There's a lot of money that has come into the Bayview, and when money's involved, people's motivations get skewed. . .. And right now there's money at the shipyard."
The city recently was awarded a $2.25 million federal grant to fund recreation centers, health clinics and other community projects at the old Hunters Point Naval Shipyard.
A similar recall campaign against Maxwell began last year, but residents were unable to gather enough signatures to force an actual recall election.
Ratcliff, in reports published in the Bay View, said he would like to be a candidate for District 10 if this recall was successful.
However, if voters were to back the recall, city law would give Mayor Gavin Newsom the chance to appoint Maxwell's successor.
Newsom is against recalls on principle, he said, "unless there's tremendous malfeasance, and I don't think in good conscience that we can make that argument about Sophie Maxwell."
The last sitting politician to face a recall was then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein, who handily won the election and kept her job.
Elections chief John Arntz said Tuesday that his staff had started verifying that the signatures on the recall petition belonged to District 10 voters. The department has until 5 p.m. Aug. 19 to make a decision on the validity of the names, he said.
Of the roughly 5,000 names, only slightly more than 4,000 are needed to force a recall election, which Arntz said most likely would take place in January. The petitioners missed the deadline to qualify for the Nov. 2 ballot, he said.
As for how much a special election would cost the city, Arntz said, "I don't want to put a number out there, but it will be several hundred thousand dollars."
Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval said that he suspected that some business interests -- particularly those who were angry at him, Maxwell and others who this year passed legislation curtailing chain stores -- were behind the scenes of the recall campaign.
"This is nothing more than sour grapes," said Sandoval, adding that he expected the same forces to hit him during his re-election campaign this fall.
Regardless of the motivation behind the recall effort, Peskin called it a "farce and a shame."
"It's a waste of people's time and energy and money -- and Sophie's going to whoop 'em," he said.
E-mail Suzanne Herel at sherel [at] sfchronicle.com.
Supervisor may face recall election -- no disclosure by foes
Her backers believe campaign funded by business interests
Suzanne Herel, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
San Francisco Supervisor Sophie Maxwell may become the first city official in 20 years to face a recall election, but it's unclear exactly who is funding the effort to unseat her -- leading Maxwell and others to suspect that some business interests have their eyes on a district full of development opportunities.
As of Tuesday, the city Ethics Commission had no financial disclosure on file for any group backing the recall campaign. Said Supervisor Aaron Peskin: "When it comes out who's behind the recall, you're going to find out there's a lot of dirty money involved. This is not about a bunch of disgruntled neighbors."
Her critics say that Maxwell, who ran unopposed two years ago, hasn't done enough to address the district's high homicide rate and environmental concerns; hasn't helped constituents get their fair share of jobs on local construction projects such as the Municipal Railway's Third Street light rail; and is generally inaccessible.
One of the recall's main supporters is Mel Washington, president of the Black Chamber of Commerce. He said that gathering the roughly 5,000 signatures on the recall petitions that were filed with the city July 19 cost little money.
"It didn't take much," said Washington, who offered the services of his store, Bay Copy. "The people who have been signing the petitions -- they wanted change."
Washington said that he had spent about $1,000 on the initiative and that not all of the signature-gatherers were paid.
"It was a real community effort," he said.
He has been joined in his quest by Willie Ratcliff, editor of the San Francisco Bay View newspaper, which has been publishing editorials in support of recalling Maxwell, who represents an area that includes Bayview-Hunters Point and Potrero Hill. Ratcliff did not return phone calls seeking comment.
Maxwell said she thought the recall effort was larger than a group of constituents.
"It's not about me," Maxwell said. "There's a lot of money that has come into the Bayview, and when money's involved, people's motivations get skewed. . .. And right now there's money at the shipyard."
The city recently was awarded a $2.25 million federal grant to fund recreation centers, health clinics and other community projects at the old Hunters Point Naval Shipyard.
A similar recall campaign against Maxwell began last year, but residents were unable to gather enough signatures to force an actual recall election.
Ratcliff, in reports published in the Bay View, said he would like to be a candidate for District 10 if this recall was successful.
However, if voters were to back the recall, city law would give Mayor Gavin Newsom the chance to appoint Maxwell's successor.
Newsom is against recalls on principle, he said, "unless there's tremendous malfeasance, and I don't think in good conscience that we can make that argument about Sophie Maxwell."
The last sitting politician to face a recall was then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein, who handily won the election and kept her job.
Elections chief John Arntz said Tuesday that his staff had started verifying that the signatures on the recall petition belonged to District 10 voters. The department has until 5 p.m. Aug. 19 to make a decision on the validity of the names, he said.
Of the roughly 5,000 names, only slightly more than 4,000 are needed to force a recall election, which Arntz said most likely would take place in January. The petitioners missed the deadline to qualify for the Nov. 2 ballot, he said.
As for how much a special election would cost the city, Arntz said, "I don't want to put a number out there, but it will be several hundred thousand dollars."
Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval said that he suspected that some business interests -- particularly those who were angry at him, Maxwell and others who this year passed legislation curtailing chain stores -- were behind the scenes of the recall campaign.
"This is nothing more than sour grapes," said Sandoval, adding that he expected the same forces to hit him during his re-election campaign this fall.
Regardless of the motivation behind the recall effort, Peskin called it a "farce and a shame."
"It's a waste of people's time and energy and money -- and Sophie's going to whoop 'em," he said.
E-mail Suzanne Herel at sherel [at] sfchronicle.com.
For more information:
http://www.sfchronicle.com
Rebuttal to the Chronicle Spin
Who is the un named special interest? Did they purchase over 15,000 signatures?
A Special Election would benefit Special Interest, they could use money to control the outreach is that why Newsom and the San Francisco Elections Department wouldn’t certify the signatures to be on the November 2nd General Election Ballot? Newsom had all sorts of voter irregularity in the last election, in his run against Gonzales. Ask the Green Party. Has Maxwell looked into the community interest verses the developer interest? Were Lennar (developer) representatives running in and out of her office? What is Peskin’s interest? Why does he want to stomp on over 15,000 low income and people of color disregarding their voice? Did Maxwell address the environmental concerns or the violence issues of the District? Where and when? Did Maxwell help her community get their fair share of jobs i.e. MUNI etc.? If so where and when? Where can she claim job hiring numbers for?
Can low income and people of income think for themselves, and want change? Does it have to be dictated by the same corrupt interest that we have read about year after year downtown? If the District doesn’t want fossil fuel plants does the Maxwell have the right to push them? On the funding by the Department of Defense $2.25 million for the Ship Yard community why not ask the question is it going into the Developers Parcel (A) for the Community or a later defined area which may not be available until after 2012 like the Communities 6 Acres slated for one of the dirtiest parts of the shipyard a landfill area Parcel B. If Newsom is so interested in the people why doesn’t he conduct a survey and then a town hall meeting of what the community really needs and wants? How many times have Peskin and Sandoval visited the District to understand the needs of the District other Supervisors have and they have not commented why not interview them?
Who is the un named special interest? Did they purchase over 15,000 signatures?
A Special Election would benefit Special Interest, they could use money to control the outreach is that why Newsom and the San Francisco Elections Department wouldn’t certify the signatures to be on the November 2nd General Election Ballot? Newsom had all sorts of voter irregularity in the last election, in his run against Gonzales. Ask the Green Party. Has Maxwell looked into the community interest verses the developer interest? Were Lennar (developer) representatives running in and out of her office? What is Peskin’s interest? Why does he want to stomp on over 15,000 low income and people of color disregarding their voice? Did Maxwell address the environmental concerns or the violence issues of the District? Where and when? Did Maxwell help her community get their fair share of jobs i.e. MUNI etc.? If so where and when? Where can she claim job hiring numbers for?
Can low income and people of income think for themselves, and want change? Does it have to be dictated by the same corrupt interest that we have read about year after year downtown? If the District doesn’t want fossil fuel plants does the Maxwell have the right to push them? On the funding by the Department of Defense $2.25 million for the Ship Yard community why not ask the question is it going into the Developers Parcel (A) for the Community or a later defined area which may not be available until after 2012 like the Communities 6 Acres slated for one of the dirtiest parts of the shipyard a landfill area Parcel B. If Newsom is so interested in the people why doesn’t he conduct a survey and then a town hall meeting of what the community really needs and wants? How many times have Peskin and Sandoval visited the District to understand the needs of the District other Supervisors have and they have not commented why not interview them?
For more information:
http://Gag the S.F Voters
We saw the Chronicle Headline "State demands S.F. group prove it didn't spend grant on Shelley
Nonprofit has until Monday or must repay the money" $125,000 in money designated for a 501C3 to help the poor and Low income for a Community Center being diverted for a campaign contribution, by no less than an appointee Julie Lee, president of the San Francisco Housing Authority Commission. Which also controlls money to the very low income and people of color she also got city owned property for a $1 ayear that we pay taxes for. Why doesn't the Chronicle write about the effects and impacts that has on the poor, low income and people of color. Why doesn't Newsome comment on this?
Nonprofit has until Monday or must repay the money" $125,000 in money designated for a 501C3 to help the poor and Low income for a Community Center being diverted for a campaign contribution, by no less than an appointee Julie Lee, president of the San Francisco Housing Authority Commission. Which also controlls money to the very low income and people of color she also got city owned property for a $1 ayear that we pay taxes for. Why doesn't the Chronicle write about the effects and impacts that has on the poor, low income and people of color. Why doesn't Newsome comment on this?
For more information:
http://See the Pattern?
August 11, 2004
Re: Letter to the Editor in Response to “SAN FRANCISCO Supervisor may face recall election” (Chronicle, Suzanne Herel, 8-11-04)
Dear Editor,
I’ve worked with District 10 community organizers for five years, and have followed the campaign to recall Supervisor Maxwell from its inception. This campaign is a grassroots effort, launched, organized, and paid for by ordinary residents, many of them putting in long volunteer hours. Most of the scant funding required for the signature gathering was put up by a local small business owner, Mel Washington. The campaign coordinator, Kevyn Lutton, a volunteer, is a disabled artist, who also led the campaign to stop Home Depot from moving in.
It's ironic that Supervisors Peskin, Sandoval, and Maxwell assert that development interests and dirty money are behind the recall, because the residents behind the recall are adamantly opposed to gentrification, displacement of low-income residents, and backroom deals with big developers. These same residents are equally committed to justice and ecology, working tirelessly to improve schools and services, and end poverty, environmental racism, and police brutality in their district, with little help from City Hall.
On Maxwell's watch, homicides have skyrocketed, the community has seen no relief from entrenched poverty and chronic unemployment, despite a billion dollar light-rail project going through the heart of it, no end to the sickening pollution of two power plants, a sewage treatment plant, superfund site, and cement factory, and they have lived under the escalating threat of the Redevelopment Agency seizing their neighborhoods and handing them over to big developers. District 10 desperately needs a champion at City Hall.
15,000 people signed the petition to recall Maxwell. 5,000 have been verified by recall volunteers--more than the number who voted for Maxwell in the first place. District 10 deserves to have their recall and to name their replacement candidates on the November ballot. State law supports this.
Mary Bull, Co-director
Greenwood Earth Alliance
Re: Letter to the Editor in Response to “SAN FRANCISCO Supervisor may face recall election” (Chronicle, Suzanne Herel, 8-11-04)
Dear Editor,
I’ve worked with District 10 community organizers for five years, and have followed the campaign to recall Supervisor Maxwell from its inception. This campaign is a grassroots effort, launched, organized, and paid for by ordinary residents, many of them putting in long volunteer hours. Most of the scant funding required for the signature gathering was put up by a local small business owner, Mel Washington. The campaign coordinator, Kevyn Lutton, a volunteer, is a disabled artist, who also led the campaign to stop Home Depot from moving in.
It's ironic that Supervisors Peskin, Sandoval, and Maxwell assert that development interests and dirty money are behind the recall, because the residents behind the recall are adamantly opposed to gentrification, displacement of low-income residents, and backroom deals with big developers. These same residents are equally committed to justice and ecology, working tirelessly to improve schools and services, and end poverty, environmental racism, and police brutality in their district, with little help from City Hall.
On Maxwell's watch, homicides have skyrocketed, the community has seen no relief from entrenched poverty and chronic unemployment, despite a billion dollar light-rail project going through the heart of it, no end to the sickening pollution of two power plants, a sewage treatment plant, superfund site, and cement factory, and they have lived under the escalating threat of the Redevelopment Agency seizing their neighborhoods and handing them over to big developers. District 10 desperately needs a champion at City Hall.
15,000 people signed the petition to recall Maxwell. 5,000 have been verified by recall volunteers--more than the number who voted for Maxwell in the first place. District 10 deserves to have their recall and to name their replacement candidates on the November ballot. State law supports this.
Mary Bull, Co-director
Greenwood Earth Alliance
A questionable $50,000
A check for the amount of a down payment for a house in the Sunset District turns up as a contribution to Kevin Shelley's campaign for secretary of state The amount of a down payment for a house in the Sunset District three years
Julie Lee, the founder of a nonprofit group at the center of an investigation into whether $125,000 from a state grant was illegally diverted to Kevin Shelley's 2002 campaign for secretary of state, appears to have funneled an additional $50,000 into Shelley's political coffers through a real estate deal, The Chronicle has learned.
The $50,000 campaign contribution was made in the form of a check from a San Francisco retiree, who purchased a home on 25th Avenue in the Sunset District for $750,000 three years ago from Lee, who was owner of the home and a real estate agent.
In an interview Wednesday with The Chronicle, Patrick K. Hsu, 69, said that before he wrote a check for the $50,000 down payment on the house, Lee told him to make it out to Shelley.
The Shelley campaign reported Hsu's donation on Sept. 30, 2001.
"Julie requested it," said Hsu, a retired worker with the California Department of Transportation. "I didn't even know who Kevin Shelley was."
The donation was by far the largest contribution from any individual to Shelley's campaign and appears to violate state law against concealing the true source of a campaign contribution.
Hsu's donation is the latest of several suspect contributions to Shelley's campaign involving Lee uncovered by The Chronicle. Those donations, first reported in Sunday's paper, have prompted investigations by the FBI, the Fair Political Practices Commission, the state controller and state attorney general.
The $50,000 donation from Hsu brings to $175,000 the amount of questionable contributions involving Lee to Shelley's campaign. Shelley raised $2.15 million in his run for office.
On Tuesday, Shelley placed $125,000 in escrow, pending a review of the legality of the donations, leaving just $20,000 in his election fund, Shelley for Secretary of State -- Every Vote Counts. Shelley, a Democrat who doesn't face re-election until 2006, also has $133,000 in a separate re-election account.
Lee did not respond to calls to her home and office, e-mails or a fax seeking comment. Her attorney, Cristina Arguedas, was unavailable for comment on Wednesday, but her law partner Laurel Headley issued this statement:
"Julie Lee has been a respected member of the San Francisco community for many years and takes these accusations very seriously. I have been and will continue to be in contact with government agencies on her behalf. We have every interest in quickly resolving this issue and I am confident that the resolution will support Julie's exemplary reputation."
Shelley has not responded to repeated requests for detailed interviews, instead issuing statements saying he was unaware of any improprieties involved in donations to his campaign.
His campaign spokesman, Sam Singer, issued another such statement on Wednesday: "We are looking at the campaign records right now. Mr. Hsu was obviously one of the largest donors to the campaign. There does appear to be a connection between Mr. Hsu and Julie Lee, and we're looking into it right now. "
In 2000, while Shelley was majority leader in the state Assembly, he arranged for the San Francisco Neighbors Resource Center, the nonprofit group Lee founded in 1999 to provide services to immigrants, to receive a $500,000 grant to build a community center in the city's Sunset District. The community center hasn't been built, and the city property the nonprofit leased is up for sale to help balance the city's budget.
The center paid three individuals and two companies a combined $168,750 for consultant services, project management and development fees related to the construction of the center, and each contributed $25,000 to Shelley's campaign within weeks, and in one case just days, of receiving the payments from the center, documents show.
In previous statements, Shelley has denied any knowledge that the contributions came from taxpayer funds.
Shortly after Shelley was inaugurated as secretary of state in January 2003, he hired Lee's son, Andrew, as a communications outreach worker earning $55,008 a year, then promoted him to international business liaison for $57, 756 annually.
Since April of this year, Andrew Lee, 30, has been receiving workers' compensation benefits.
Repeated efforts to reach Andrew Lee were unsuccessful.
Hsu's contribution appears to violate a state law that says "no person shall make a contribution on behalf of another" without disclosing the arrangement. Shelley's campaign finance reports, filed with the state, say the contribution came from Hsu, not Lee.
"It was basically her money," said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies and a former general counsel of the state Fair Political Practices Commission. "It's unique money laundering."
The commission, which enforces the law, can punish violators with administrative fines.
Hsu said he would never give so much money to a political campaign.
"It's big money for me,'' he said. "That's a whole year's salary."
Other than the $50,000 donation, Hsu's name didn't show up as a contributor to any politician in a search of city, state and federal campaign records over the past few years.
Hsu and his wife, who were born in China, said they didn't have any connection to Lee, except for their real estate dealings.
"Julie Lee is my broker," Hsu said. "I bought a house from her."
According to records at the San Francisco Assessor-Recorder's Office, Hsu and his wife, Selina, bought a five-bedroom, five-bathroom house on 25th Avenue from Julie Lee and her husband on Oct. 25, 2001, for $750,000 less than four weeks after Shelley's campaign said it received $50,000 from Hsu.
City records show that the families have other connections.
Hsu's son, Alex, and his daughter, Diana L. Hsu, each gave $500, the maximum allowed, to Julie Lee's son, Andrew, when Andrew ran for city supervisor in 2002.
Alex Hsu also sold some undeveloped land to Lee's daughter, Audrie, in May 2003 for $350,000, in a transaction that Alex Hsu largely financed himself.
Diana and Alex Hsu also bought a house at 1333 Taraval St., right next to Julie Lee's real estate and mortgage businesses, First National Realty and First Financial Services.
Still, Patrick Hsu said he had no idea why Lee would want him to write the check for his down payment to Shelley. At the time, Hsu figured Lee owed Shelley the money, but wasn't sure.
"I didn't care,'' Hsu said. "She requested it."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Political Reform Act
Section 84302 of the California Government Code states:
No person shall make a contribution on behalf of another, or while acting as the intermediary or agent of another, without disclosing to the recipient of the contribution both his own full name and street address, occupation, and the name of his employer, if any, or his principal place of business if he is self-employed, and the full name and street address, occupation, and the name of employer, if any, or principal place of business if self-employed, of the other person. The recipient of the contribution shall include in his campaign statement the full name and street address, occupation, and the name of the employer, if any, or the principal place of business if self-employed, of both the intermediary and the contributor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Money trail to campaign fund
Julie Lee has ties to $175,000 in suspect donations made to Kevin Shelley's 2002 campaign for secretary of state. The donations involve two types of transactions.
Campaign donation Or down payment?
Shelley's campaign received a check for $50,000 from Patrick Hsu on Sept. 30, 2001. The money was a down payment for a house in San Francisco, Hsu said, but Lee told him to make the check out to Shelley. On Oct. 25, 2001, Lee and her husband Shing-Kit sold the house to Hsu.
State grant
In 2000, as majority leader of the state Assembly, Shelley sponsored the legislation that led to a $500,000 grant to build Lee's community center in San Francisco's Sunset District. At least three individuals and two companies who received some of the grant money gave donations to Shelley's campaign.
The Chronicle Source: Chronicle research, San Francisco Assessor Recorder Office
A check for the amount of a down payment for a house in the Sunset District turns up as a contribution to Kevin Shelley's campaign for secretary of state The amount of a down payment for a house in the Sunset District three years
Julie Lee, the founder of a nonprofit group at the center of an investigation into whether $125,000 from a state grant was illegally diverted to Kevin Shelley's 2002 campaign for secretary of state, appears to have funneled an additional $50,000 into Shelley's political coffers through a real estate deal, The Chronicle has learned.
The $50,000 campaign contribution was made in the form of a check from a San Francisco retiree, who purchased a home on 25th Avenue in the Sunset District for $750,000 three years ago from Lee, who was owner of the home and a real estate agent.
In an interview Wednesday with The Chronicle, Patrick K. Hsu, 69, said that before he wrote a check for the $50,000 down payment on the house, Lee told him to make it out to Shelley.
The Shelley campaign reported Hsu's donation on Sept. 30, 2001.
"Julie requested it," said Hsu, a retired worker with the California Department of Transportation. "I didn't even know who Kevin Shelley was."
The donation was by far the largest contribution from any individual to Shelley's campaign and appears to violate state law against concealing the true source of a campaign contribution.
Hsu's donation is the latest of several suspect contributions to Shelley's campaign involving Lee uncovered by The Chronicle. Those donations, first reported in Sunday's paper, have prompted investigations by the FBI, the Fair Political Practices Commission, the state controller and state attorney general.
The $50,000 donation from Hsu brings to $175,000 the amount of questionable contributions involving Lee to Shelley's campaign. Shelley raised $2.15 million in his run for office.
On Tuesday, Shelley placed $125,000 in escrow, pending a review of the legality of the donations, leaving just $20,000 in his election fund, Shelley for Secretary of State -- Every Vote Counts. Shelley, a Democrat who doesn't face re-election until 2006, also has $133,000 in a separate re-election account.
Lee did not respond to calls to her home and office, e-mails or a fax seeking comment. Her attorney, Cristina Arguedas, was unavailable for comment on Wednesday, but her law partner Laurel Headley issued this statement:
"Julie Lee has been a respected member of the San Francisco community for many years and takes these accusations very seriously. I have been and will continue to be in contact with government agencies on her behalf. We have every interest in quickly resolving this issue and I am confident that the resolution will support Julie's exemplary reputation."
Shelley has not responded to repeated requests for detailed interviews, instead issuing statements saying he was unaware of any improprieties involved in donations to his campaign.
His campaign spokesman, Sam Singer, issued another such statement on Wednesday: "We are looking at the campaign records right now. Mr. Hsu was obviously one of the largest donors to the campaign. There does appear to be a connection between Mr. Hsu and Julie Lee, and we're looking into it right now. "
In 2000, while Shelley was majority leader in the state Assembly, he arranged for the San Francisco Neighbors Resource Center, the nonprofit group Lee founded in 1999 to provide services to immigrants, to receive a $500,000 grant to build a community center in the city's Sunset District. The community center hasn't been built, and the city property the nonprofit leased is up for sale to help balance the city's budget.
The center paid three individuals and two companies a combined $168,750 for consultant services, project management and development fees related to the construction of the center, and each contributed $25,000 to Shelley's campaign within weeks, and in one case just days, of receiving the payments from the center, documents show.
In previous statements, Shelley has denied any knowledge that the contributions came from taxpayer funds.
Shortly after Shelley was inaugurated as secretary of state in January 2003, he hired Lee's son, Andrew, as a communications outreach worker earning $55,008 a year, then promoted him to international business liaison for $57, 756 annually.
Since April of this year, Andrew Lee, 30, has been receiving workers' compensation benefits.
Repeated efforts to reach Andrew Lee were unsuccessful.
Hsu's contribution appears to violate a state law that says "no person shall make a contribution on behalf of another" without disclosing the arrangement. Shelley's campaign finance reports, filed with the state, say the contribution came from Hsu, not Lee.
"It was basically her money," said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies and a former general counsel of the state Fair Political Practices Commission. "It's unique money laundering."
The commission, which enforces the law, can punish violators with administrative fines.
Hsu said he would never give so much money to a political campaign.
"It's big money for me,'' he said. "That's a whole year's salary."
Other than the $50,000 donation, Hsu's name didn't show up as a contributor to any politician in a search of city, state and federal campaign records over the past few years.
Hsu and his wife, who were born in China, said they didn't have any connection to Lee, except for their real estate dealings.
"Julie Lee is my broker," Hsu said. "I bought a house from her."
According to records at the San Francisco Assessor-Recorder's Office, Hsu and his wife, Selina, bought a five-bedroom, five-bathroom house on 25th Avenue from Julie Lee and her husband on Oct. 25, 2001, for $750,000 less than four weeks after Shelley's campaign said it received $50,000 from Hsu.
City records show that the families have other connections.
Hsu's son, Alex, and his daughter, Diana L. Hsu, each gave $500, the maximum allowed, to Julie Lee's son, Andrew, when Andrew ran for city supervisor in 2002.
Alex Hsu also sold some undeveloped land to Lee's daughter, Audrie, in May 2003 for $350,000, in a transaction that Alex Hsu largely financed himself.
Diana and Alex Hsu also bought a house at 1333 Taraval St., right next to Julie Lee's real estate and mortgage businesses, First National Realty and First Financial Services.
Still, Patrick Hsu said he had no idea why Lee would want him to write the check for his down payment to Shelley. At the time, Hsu figured Lee owed Shelley the money, but wasn't sure.
"I didn't care,'' Hsu said. "She requested it."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Political Reform Act
Section 84302 of the California Government Code states:
No person shall make a contribution on behalf of another, or while acting as the intermediary or agent of another, without disclosing to the recipient of the contribution both his own full name and street address, occupation, and the name of his employer, if any, or his principal place of business if he is self-employed, and the full name and street address, occupation, and the name of employer, if any, or principal place of business if self-employed, of the other person. The recipient of the contribution shall include in his campaign statement the full name and street address, occupation, and the name of the employer, if any, or the principal place of business if self-employed, of both the intermediary and the contributor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Money trail to campaign fund
Julie Lee has ties to $175,000 in suspect donations made to Kevin Shelley's 2002 campaign for secretary of state. The donations involve two types of transactions.
Campaign donation Or down payment?
Shelley's campaign received a check for $50,000 from Patrick Hsu on Sept. 30, 2001. The money was a down payment for a house in San Francisco, Hsu said, but Lee told him to make the check out to Shelley. On Oct. 25, 2001, Lee and her husband Shing-Kit sold the house to Hsu.
State grant
In 2000, as majority leader of the state Assembly, Shelley sponsored the legislation that led to a $500,000 grant to build Lee's community center in San Francisco's Sunset District. At least three individuals and two companies who received some of the grant money gave donations to Shelley's campaign.
The Chronicle Source: Chronicle research, San Francisco Assessor Recorder Office
For more information:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...
Susan Horsfall is one of the 43 contributors whose employment information is left out of Becerril's files. Horsfall – a lawyer at Goggin & Goggin, which represents Lennar, the prime developer at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard – told us she does not remember whether she provided that information when she made her donation.
http://www.sfbg.com/News/34/50/50nfntbk.html
“Soon to join the list: City Hall insider Susan Horsfall, who works for the law firm that represents Lennar Corp. - the developer that won the right to take over the old Hunters Point shipyard.
For additional information on the Hunters Point Shipyard redevelopment project, please contact:
Sam Singer or Karen Stern
Singer (notice the tie to Shelley)
http://www.sfbg.com/News/34/50/50nfntbk.html
“Soon to join the list: City Hall insider Susan Horsfall, who works for the law firm that represents Lennar Corp. - the developer that won the right to take over the old Hunters Point shipyard.
For additional information on the Hunters Point Shipyard redevelopment project, please contact:
Sam Singer or Karen Stern
Singer (notice the tie to Shelley)
For more information:
http://www.sfbayview.com/042104/conveyance...
After the past eight years Environmental Justice/racism has gotten worst, the independent reports show that things have in fact not improved for the residents and the community of Hunters Point.
Let's stop Racism now!
Has Bayview Hunters Point conditions or gotten worst over the past 8 years for its Residents? Well according to the Original Human Rights Commission Report "The Unfinished Agenda", the Grand Jury Report, the report on "Environmental Justice" by the San Francisco State University Journalism Department, UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, and the New Human Rights Commission Report on "Environmental Racism". Basically that community is living under the worst kind of Racism of a modern progressive city in the United States.
Will the new Mayoral Administration address these important reports or will their be a continuing rip off of Hunters Point residents of their rights, their environment, their opportunity and a suppression of the community?
This is something the rest of the liberal City of San Francisco should focus on now, it makes no sense to suppress a multi cultural community of color with over 35,000 residents. When you read the reports make a judgment from your heart is this acceptable behavior in modern times? Look at the historic information, you be the judge. Why should fellow San Franciscans have to endure this kind of sub third world treatment in the year 2003 soon to be 2004.
We suggest you call or write the Board of Supervisors, the Mayors Office, the state and federal officials and let them know that this is not acceptable behavior for the Community residents of San Francisco to endure this type of Environmental injustice and racism today. That community has had the largest home ownership which means that they pay more than their fair share of taxes, read the reports and you determine if they have had the benefit of their taxes or have they been abused. Would you accept those conditions for yourself or your family?
Lets get active the San Francisco Resident of Hunters Point need your help to stop the racial injustice, the environmental injustice, the racism of the past and help their community to become equal partners in San Francisco. Say no to Environmental Injustice, Environmental Racism and say yes to Environmental Justice.
All of these independent report are available on http://mecresources.com/environment.htm or go to http://mecresources.com and then click on environment. Their you will see more than enough confirmation of facts by city agencies, university journalism departments etc.
Get active, the Children of Hunters Point Community need your help.
mecresources.com/environment.htm
add your comments
More History on Hunters Point
by the S.F Community Friday, Dec. 26, 2003 at 1:40 PM
printable version - email this article
View article without comments
Lets stop Environmental Injustice/Racism in Hunters Point
by Maurice Campbell & Barbara George Friday December 26, 2003 at 11:57 AM
mecsoft [at] pacbell.net 415.468-8964
Let's stop Racism now!
Has Bayview Hunters Point conditions or gotten worst over the past 8 years for its Residents? Well according to the Original Human Rights Commission Report The Unfinished Agenda, the Grand Jury Report, the report on Environmental Justice by the San Francisco State University Journalism Department, UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, and the New Human Rights Commission Report on Environmental Racism. Basically that community is living under the worst kind of Racism of a modern progressive city in the United States.
Will the new Mayoral Administration address these important reports or will their be a continuning rip off of Hunters Point residents of their rights, their environment, their opportunity and a suppression of the community?
This is something the rest of the liberal City of San Francisco should focus on now, it makes no sense to suppress a multi cultural community of color with over 35,000 residents. When you read the reports make a judgement from your heart is this acceptable behaviour in modern times? Look at the historic information, you be the judge. Why should fellow San Franciscans have to endure this kind of sub third world treatment in the year 2003 soon to be 2004.
We suggest you call or write the Board of Supervisors, the Mayors Office, the state and federal officials and let them know that this is not acceptable behaviour for the Community residents of San Francisco to endure this type of Environmental injustice and racism today. That community has had the largest home ownership which means that they pay more than their fair share of taxes, read the reports and you determine if they have had the benefit of their taxes or have they been abused. Would you accept those conditions for yourself or your family?
Lets get active the San Francisco Resident of Hunters Point need your help to stop the racial injustice, the environmental injustice, the racism of the past and help their community to become equal partners in San Francisco. Say no to Environmental Injustice, Environmental Racism and say yes to Environmental Justice.
All of these independent report are available on http://mecresources/environment.htm or go to http://mecresources.com and then click on environment. Their you will see more than enough confirmation of facts by city agencies, university journalism departments etc.
Get active, the Children of Hunters Point Community need your help.
mecresources.com/environment.htm
add your comments
Link correction
by Maurice Campbell & Barbara George Friday December 26, 2003 at 12:07 PM
mecsoft [at] pacbell.net
A correction to the link
mecresources.com/environment.htm
add your comments
More info that you should add
by da community Friday December 26, 2003 at 12:26 PM
audio: MP3 at 690.7 kibibytes
you should add the following links to your story they show another pattern of racism!
http://www.indybay.org/news/?category=&medium=audio
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/12/1663431.php
http://www.sf-frontlines.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=502&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/11/1662197.php
http://www.sfbayview.com/112603/redevelopment112603.shtml
add your comments
Documentation supporting links
by Maurice Campbell & Barbara George Friday, Dec. 26, 2003 at 2:15 PM
Here are the environmental justice/racism supporting links
http://mecresources.com/unfinished.htm "The Unfinished Agenda". The Grand Jury Report http://mecresources.com/SFGov%20Superior%20Court%20Hunters%20Point%20Naval%20Shipyard,%20released%20June%202002.htm The San Francisco State Journalism Project on Hunter Point http://online.sfsu.edu/~j667/news.htm UC Berkekeley graduate School of Journalism "Growing up Policed in Hunters Point" Suspicions Rise http://online.sfsu.edu/~j667/rab.html The New Human Rights commision report on Environmental Racism http;//mecresources.com/envirorace.htm These reports should confirm the history of racism that has been placed upon Hunters Point multi cultural community.
add your comments
We will be active
by San Francisco People (Nancy) Friday, Dec. 26, 2003 at 3:04 PM
I am appalled that a politician from San Francisco played the race and gender card. Look at what he has allowed to happen to his own people
add your comments
Institutional Racism by the City of San Francisco
by Ellen Friday, Dec. 26, 2003 at 3:18 PM
What the reports shows is a pattern of racism inflicted on the Hunters Point community, much like what they are doing to the homeless population. Shame, shame on San Francisco government and its leaders. If people chose to turn a blind eye to this problem lets remove them from office, and fire the city department heads that are allowing this to take place. This has to change this is not the deep south, this is San Francisco.
add your comments
A Democratic Party Failure
by Patrick Friday, Dec. 26, 2003 at 4:03 PM
What this shows is a general Democratic Party failure in protecting its members from Hunter Point. The party structure seems to have changed only doing the bidding of the rich and powerful. Forget about working class people or people of color, no wonder they are losing elections. How many of our elected officials will stay around if they don't get our vote, I think several of them need our single vote. Please take this as a reminder we are watching your stances. We want representation for the people of Hunters Point too and we are not just talking local.
add your comments
Politicians remember Prop P
by Cammden Friday, Dec. 26, 2003 at 4:26 PM
When we backed Hunter Point with 87% of our San Francisco votes to "Clean Up the Shipyard to Residential Standards" we didn't abandon the people of Hunters Point. We are not going to do it now, so politicians beware if you want to stay in office do something to help that community or we will help you out of office.
add your comments
Thanks for the weeklys and the independent media
by Kyle Friday, Dec. 26, 2003 at 4:56 PM
Thanks to the independent media for covering these stories. We would have had no idea what is going on locally. The main stream papers seem to be part of the city's coverup of these very important news stories. it reminds me of old southern publications. Racism, racism, racism more sophisticated but still racism. We are for all the Journalistic awards going to small and independent media that cover the news, all the news.
add your comments
hats off to the Bayview Newspaper
by Ron Friday, Dec. 26, 2003 at 7:32 PM
After looking at some of the links and reading what the Bayview Newspaper had to say in their editorials. The picture becomes even more clear that racism has taken a new tact.
Why is the city allowing this to happen?
Where is Boxer, Finestein, and Pelosi?
add your comments
WORD !
by Mesha Monge-Irizarry Friday, Dec. 26, 2003 at 10:43 PM
iolmisha [at] cs.com (415) 595-8251 The Green House on 3rd St
You tell the truth!
We, in BVHP live in the SF neighborhood that has the best weather and views! A a matter of fact, a ship with a giant Newsom sign on his side, packed with "sophisticated" onlookers, was sighted cruising China Basin all the way to 3COM Park and back to the Bay Bridge 4 days before the elections...Cruising the upcoming gentrified Basin, prey of the pimps of the poor.
If their plan succeed, then our City Government will eagerly clean up the land field, the ship yard, insure top-quality air control, create more phenomenal opportunities for rich white folks to bring their booming, upscale, exclusive business to BVHP...
Under the "Imminent Domain" ordinance, the City can force us, commercial property owners, to sell at lowest market value (we are the cheapest in the city!) or else...CONFISCATE !
Many folks in our district are already selling hastily, compounding the massive departure of African American from SF in the past decade, scared to end up below poverty level after several generations of hard work. To go where? Treasure Island? Seemingly the next concentrationary hell of poor people of color, isolated, no cultural outlets, 1 bus in and out (none at night), trapped and bound to increased criminality and deprivation (remember when a Native American tribe reclaimed Alcatraz and was wiped out by tuberculosis within a few years?)
Why should the city car about us ? They want us out of Hunters Point. Beside the upcoming gentrification through the lightrail, many factors are precipitating our fate:
* Apathy of DPH addressing aggressively the overwhelming genocidal pollution in our district : Highest rates in the city of breast cancer, lymphoma, asthma and acute respiratory diseases caused by the pollution level at he shipyard, and since April 2003, the lightrail excavation: we are actually breathing RADIUM, released by the corpses of the buried horses utilized during the atomic experiments...No respiratory precautions have been publicized by the subcontractors for their workers, let alone us residents ! 47% of birth defects affecting newborn babies are documented to be BVHP statistics! Do I smell Taskigui?
* Lack of training, job placement and job opportunities, compounding our youth at risk criminality rate. The vontractors, upon injunction of our Board of Supervisors, agreed to make a "good faith effort" (admire the evasiveness of the language...) to hire BVHP residents. So they hire 70 (mostly flag holders at minimal rate), then laid off 60 two weeks later. Nothing to it: they made their honest good faith effort in hiring, the Supervisors recommendation did not include anything about RETAINING these workers.
* Massive increase of the criminalization through police harassment, often times under false pretenses of investigating a possible drug operation (cf: August 25, Middle Point Road, where guns where pointed at small children, a mother was addressed "Black b...." and threatened to be shot when she tried to protect her 14 yr. son who was severely beaten), regardless of the previous scandal of police brutality on our children on Kiska Road on MLK day in 2002...
* On going virtual impossibility for BVHP residents who want to purchase their first home to obtain a loan from our local banks
Our city government dirty laundry list goes on and on when it comes to Bayview Hunters Point.
But we can stop the racist, genocidal process ! We can stop the eradication of BVHP village !
This coming Sunday, December 28, Please tune on 103.3 FM, Bayview Hunters Point Community Radio, to listen to Maurice Campbell and Lynn Brown live on "No Pigs in DA Hood !" at 6 P.M.
And remember, silence and economic division kills. We will not tolerate another Fillmore eradication of the African American community !
Maurice, Barbara, we are down with you ! And many more are joining, venceremos !
mesha, Idriss Stelley Foundation.
justice4idriss.org
add your comments
The Forgotten Community
by Lynne Brown Friday, Dec. 26, 2003 at 10:59 PM
The Forgotten Community
by Lynne Brown Friday December 26, 2003 at 10:55 PM
L_Brown123 [at] hotmail.com 415-285-4628
Hunters Point is a low-income community of color,and we have been terrorized and disfranchise by the right wing Democrats since the closing of the Hunters Point Shipyard in 1974. During the pass eight years, 20,000 African Americans have left or were relocated out of San Francisco with help from the Federal, (HUD) State, (Redevelopment Agency) and Local (Project Area Committee) Governments. With unemployment at 16% today in Hunters Point, 85% of the contracts for new project developments in San Francisco goes to friends of the Right Wing Democrats. My community is riddle with fraud, corruption, malfeasance, favoritism, and civil rights violations. These Right Wing Democrats don't understand. They took an oath to govern not jump into the bed with big business, developers, and profit for themselves. We need the FBI and the U.S. Attorney General to start their investigation at the Gatekeepers place of business. City Hall 401 Polk St. San Francisco, California
sftimes.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$16
add your comments
Where are the Civil Rights Activists? "
by Ms. K. Lutton Saturday, Dec. 27, 2003 at 12:40 AM
kevyn11 [at] yahoo.com
"Where are the Civil Rights Activists?'' They are here!The resident activists are here. Maurice Campbell tells the story .
Environmental justice: air borne toxins, redevelopment's aggressive march of gentrification, insufficient health care clinics, no jobs, ghettos created by City planning (Put everyone who suffers from despair, or who who have been entranced by commercial promotions of consumerism while living the realities of a poor person's life.) Then let them sicken and die or get killed or kill each other. The final blow will be to take out 30% of all Black males and imprison them for a crime they may or have may not committed. Police, aside from many positive purposes they serve, are the instruments of removal, out of sight of poor people, ailing people, and among them especially Blacks and Latinos. This high stress environment causes circulatory illnesses, heart disease, diabetes, and mental illness. Three African American men in psychiatric crises were shot dead by S. F. Police in the the resent past. The community is being attacked on multiple fronts at the same time. Please listen to what Maurice Campbell and Barbara George have to ask you and do something today. This hard working community has a difficult time getting the attention it deserves at City Hall. Advocates from other districts are respectfully called upon to amplify our voices.
Kevyn Lutton
add your comments
the Sellouts
by the community Saturday, Dec. 27, 2003 at 9:39 AM
We the people of Hunters Point are aware of several individuals, who have sold out by accepting money from unscrupulous operations and saying they represent the community. The only people they represent are themselves and their pockets, not the community. We have even seen some of their names on Newsome's transition team. We have a so called white leader using a false name saying he represents the black community, the authorities know his real name just the general community doesn't, and he has accepted money to peddle influence in the community. Look at the people who were convicted for crooked dealing; they had close ties to City Hall. This information is common knowledge in the community. Be sure the community is ready to start naming names of these sellouts who have lined their greedy little paws and pockets, many of them have done this for years. Some have seen the light and redeemed themselves from continuing a bad action. The media should do an in-depth investigation and start naming them. The media should also run a survey of city services and ask the community which ones are serving the community and which ones are using a political agenda to suppress the residents. We would not be shocked at the results. That survey should also apply to political represenentives which ones the community feels are helping the community, which ones the community feel are not. The survey need to be done by a truly independent group, not a paid special interest group. Investigations need to be called for where has all the money destined for Hunters Point gone, we know it didn't get to Hunters Point. E.g. Airport jobs, Muni jobs, Navy jobs, the list goes on. Just promises no real action, however the sellouts got paid to represent the community.
This has to stop; Bayview Hunters Point deserves better, not false promises.
add your comments
Remember This Story
by Chronicle Arcives Saturday, Dec. 27, 2003 at 12:22 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soft-Money Campaigns Didn't Sway Voters
$1.3 million couldn't save Brown's allies
Ilene Lelchuk, Chronicle Staff Writer Thursday, December 14, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco -- Mayor Willie Brown's allies in corporate San Francisco spent more than $302,500 -- $28 per vote -- to help Board of Supervisors candidate Linda Richardson in District 10.
And she still lost.
The same big businesses, builders, restaurant owners and a coalition of neighborhood merchants opened their wallets and rolled out what amounted to $25 per vote for District 6 candidate Chris Dittenhafer and about $13 per vote for Juanita Owens.
They lost, too.
"It reminds me of the Beatles song lyric 'Money can't buy me love,' " said Ken Cleaveland from the Building Owners and Managers Association of San Francisco. His group donated roughly $50,000 to independent expenditure committees that paid for mailers, bus shelter ads and phone banks in the candidates' behalf.
Reports show the unprecedented "soft money" spent so far on 14 of the 18 supervisors candidates who qualified for Tuesday's runoff election hit more than $1.3 million -- an expensive first for supervisors races. That total is likely to grow when the final expenditures are reported.
Most of that money, which was raised and spent independently from each candidate's own campaign, went to political moderates supported by the mayor who were resoundingly defeated by a disparate group of progressives making corporate San Francisco wring its collective hands with worry.
"I think most of the business community is shell-shocked right now," said Cleaveland, whose organization represents the owners of about 300 buildings.
"Worst case, we fear more taxes . . . like the taxes proposed by Supervisor Tom Ammiano four or five years ago," he said. "I think the corporate business community is holding its breath."
Their fears may be grounded in reality.
"Of course, taxes are on my mind," District 6 winner Chris Daly said.
The low-income housing fees that the city charges downtown developers are way too low, he said. And he likes Ammiano's old proposals to tax downtown businesses to help pay for Muni as well as creating a property transfer tax, which he would apply to land that changes hands within an extremely short period of time.
"Certainly, we need to do something about this flipping of properties to cut down on real estate prospecting," Daly said.
The business community also has other concerns now that many of the candidates they backed -- Richardson, Dittenhafer, Supervisor Amos Brown, Supervisor Michael Yaki, Juanita Owens and Lawrence Wong -- lost.
The Committee on Jobs and BOMA will watch closely how the new board tackles development issues and try to open lines of communication with the new supervisors.
Many of the board winners supported Proposition L, a stringent growth- control measure aimed at dot-com offices, while many of the losers supported the mayor's opposing Proposition K, a more lenient control plan. Both measures lost in November, although voters narrowly defeated Proposition L.
"It's obvious that the issues are around the growth of this city," said Nathan Nayman, executive director of the Committee on Jobs, which represents some of the city's biggest companies such as the Gap. The group spent roughly $250,000 on candidates in the general and runoff elections.
Cleaveland added, "There is no question that Proposition L is going to come back and the people who vote in San Francisco have clearly said 'let's slow down on development.' And that's something the business community is going to have to look at pretty hard and live with."
Kathleen Harrington, president of the Golden Gate Restaurant Owners Association, which spent almost $60,000 on some of those candidates, said her members are concerned about future attempts by the new board to expand a living-wage law. And she wonders how the new board will deal with nuisance complaints about noise, smoking and late hours at bars and restaurants.
Winner Sophie Maxwell in District 10 saw no soft money spent in her behalf compared with the roughly $28 per vote for opponent Richardson's benefit during the general election and runoff campaigns. And in District 6, special interest groups including the Labor Council spent only about $1.10 per vote in behalf of winner Chris Daly.
add your comments
Interview with Olin Webb
by community Saturday, Dec. 27, 2003 at 8:20 PM
Ironically, one possible savior of the region is the
U.S. Naval Shipyard, the moloch that created
Bayview-Hunters Point a half century ago, but brutally
poisoned her in the succeeding decades. Five hundred
fifty acres of military land is being handed over to
the city prime bayside real estate, a dazzling spread
that's worth astronomical millions. City Hall has
concocted its own elaborate blueprint (developed by
white guys, of course), which includes restaurants,
shops, a sports park, an African American market, and
a public plaza, with 8,000 new jobs and 1,800 new
homes. This sounds like something the locals need,
right?
"Wrong," says Webb. His contention is that at least 50
percent of the property should be delivered to the
Community First Coalition for Hunters Point Shipyard,
a synthesis of the area's activist organizations and
citywide reform groups like the Urban Habitat Program.
Their plan for the shipyard would be to "first clean
that rascal up" so that residents would no longer be contaminated by the Navy's clandestine pollutants. After that, light-industry jobs, homes, and live/work multimedia units would be created to specifically benefit Bayview-Hunters Point residents. "We just want it to be owned and controlled by the community," says Webb. "We can help ourselves if we're given the opportunity."
It would be a historic, utopian gesture if the city
agreed to Webb's plan. But does San Francisco really
care even a smidgen about racial and economic
diversity? Can its policy of neglect and exploitation
be reversed? City Hall needs to decide quickly, before
the city's blue-collar African American population
vanishes. Will the future redeem us, or is it already
too late?
add your comments
Ethics panel eyes redevelopment role in Hunters Point
by Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross Sunday, Dec. 28, 2003 at 11:45 AM
Ethics panel eyes redevelopment role in Hunters Point
Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross Monday, March 17, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco -- The trio whose habit of voting together on controversial items has tagged them the "Pep Boys" of the San Francisco Redevelopment Commission -- Benny Yee, Leroy King and Darshan Singh -- were all hit with subpoenas from the city's ethics watchdog agency this past week.
Soon to join the list: City Hall insider Susan Horsfall, who works for the law firm that represents Lennar Corp. -- the developer that won the right to take over the old Hunters Point shipyard.
No one at the Ethics Commission is talking, but word among Redevelopment insiders is that a complaint came in more than a year ago alleging that Horsfall and the Pep Boys appeared to be a little too close for comfort -- often dining out together after meetings.
Right around the time, it seems, that the commission -- including the Pep Boys -- voted to disregard its consultant's findings and award the rights to develop the shipyard to Lennar.
"This is all about those same old stories about us getting gifts and dinners," King said. "It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now."
An Ethics Commission investigation isn't criminal -- but it can refer its findings to the district attorney.
For her part, Horsfall told us she has "no idea what any of this is about. We haven't had dinner together in over a year, so any reference to that is old news."
Maybe -- but from the looks of things, it's about to become news again.
SOS HOM: Real estate broker, political fund-raiser and Chinatown bigwig Ben Hom's appointment to the San Francisco Port Commission appears to be sinking as fast as the Titanic.
"I only count four votes -- he needs six," said one member of the Board of Supervisors.
That's a far cry from the seven supervisors who gave Hom the initial nod of approval a couple of months back.
But then, that was before the press had a field day revealing Hom's conflict-of-interest problems when he was on the Redevelopment and Public Utilities commissions.
"As it stands, he's got four choices," the supervisor said.
"Withdraw. Lose the vote Tuesday. Have it sent back to committee to die slowly. Or put it off until next week when (Supervisor Chris Daly) returns."
Although waiting for Daly would just be delaying the inevitable, since Hom would still come up one vote short.
MUNI MELTING: With all the attention focused on San Francisco's police crisis, it's largely escaped public notice that the Municipal Railway is having its own minor meltdown as well.
Just about the time the police indictments were being handed up, the Muni was hit with a three-day worker sickout -- one that resulted in dozens of runs being canceled.
According to an internal memo by Muni General Manager Michael Burns, "in a sudden and unexpected move, large numbers of operators failed to report to work or called in sick" during the first three days of March.
So instead of the typical seven missed runs on Saturday, the first day of the reported sickout, there were 80.
The next day there were 57 missed runs, compared with the usual 10 for a Sunday. Among other things, only half of the city's 18 cable cars made it out of the barn.
And on Monday -- when traffic is heaviest -- the Muni missed 50 runs, compared with the usual 18.
The motivation behind the sickouts appears to be the cash-strapped Muni's attempt to cut millions of dollars in worker overtime, job perks and other sacred labor practices.
Union representatives didn't want to be quoted, but privately they accused Burns of wielding the ax without consulting them.
They also emphatically denied there had been any work stoppage or sickout whatsoever.
Muni is grappling with a $16 million budget hole this year, which is projected to deepen to $52 million next year.
In response, the officials have proposed fare hikes, increased parking fines and higher city parking garage rates to raise the money.
But boss Burns also ordered an across-the-board elimination of overtime -- a serious blow to drivers who have grown accustomed to making the extra money.
And then there's his behind-the-scenes push to require all drivers to actually get out and drive.
Now that may sound strange, but as a result of a practice dating back some 30 years, the Muni has seven drivers on the payroll who conduct union business full time.
And not only do the seven union reps not drive -- they are guaranteed one hour of overtime a day.
The city's cost for this unusual little benefit: about $65,000 a year per worker, or nearly a half-million dollars overall.
School daze: It's been brought to our attention that while more than 1,100 possible layoff notices were going to teachers and staff in Oakland over the weekend, schools Superintendent Dennis Chaconas was hosting a fair Saturday aimed at -- yes, producing more teachers.
Of course, school officials emphasized that the four-hour "Teacher Reception and Credential Fair" at Jack London's Waterfront Hotel wasn't about hiring, since there are "no open positions."
No -- just lots of friendly college reps promising a rewarding career in education.
And finally: An update on the San Francisco Police Department from the home answering machine of Supervisor and mayoral hopeful Tom Ammiano: "Greetings. You've reached the acting, temporary, assistant, transitional, virtual shadow, unindictable but suspicious protege of the chief of police.
"May we help you?"
Chronicle columnists Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross appear Sundays, Mondays and Wednesdays. They can also be heard on KGO Radio on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. Phil Matier can be seen regularly on KRON-TV. Got a tip? Call them at (415) 777-8815 or drop them an e-mail at matierandross [at] sfchronicle.com.
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/03/17/BA202893.DTL
add your comments
Time to Sue San Francisco in a Class Action Lawsuit
by The Community Monday, Dec. 29, 2003 at 5:42 PM
The combined reports showing Environmental Injustice/Racism with a predominace of evidence from government agencies and other sources show that a Class Action Lawsuit should be filed against the City of San Francisco. It is a case that could be won, because of the factual historic evidence. It is time for the Hunters Point/Bayview community to start gathering signatures and filing a lawsuit against the City. Hunters Point, Bayview the time is now to sign on to the Class Actionpetition to sue. it would be most interesting to see the city defend against the Grand Jury Report, The Human Rights Commission Reports, The University Journalism Reports and the Newspaper accounts of their own Environmental Injustice/Racism.
add your comments
Navy contracting with the local community leaves a lot to be desired
by Maurice Campbell Wednesday, Dec. 31, 2003 at 10:46 AM
The Navy’s contracting program for the clean up of Hunters Point Shipyard utilizing local community companies/contractors has been less than stellar. Of over $300 million spent on hunters Point Shipyard less than $18 million has gone to local contractors. Many Prime Contractors and sub contractors have bypassed the local community altogether, despite laws that state local communities (impacted) should get a preference. This is how you keep a community economically depressed. Why isn’t our Federal legislative body weighing in on this miscarriage of justice? This community’s people have suffered the health impacts of living in a toxic, radiological environment, exposures to numerous shipyard fires, polluted groundwater, and high levels of compromised air. When is enough, enough?
The Navy has to institute a good neighbor policy bring fairness to remediation cleanup up opportunities for the local community, after all the community suffered from the negative effects of living under the Navy’s irresponsible toxic exposure. What is there to lose by incorporating the local community through jobs, contracts etc.?
To further disenfranchise the community an out of town developer seems to be the incumbent for the development of the shipyard with the current administration support, however not the communities. At the same time San Francisco Redevelopment Agency is looking at expanding the Hunters Point Project Area from 137 Acres by 1600 acres for a total of 1737 acres, Remember a project area is considered a blighted area, which can be bulldozed and Redeveloped, which is most of Hunters Point. Their goes the Hunter Point neighborhood, remember the Fillmore, at least their people didn’t suffer the near genocidal environment before they were evicted from their neighborhood.
Hunters Point Bayview need your support to bring fairness to their state of siege of Environmental Injustice and Environmental Racism. We as San Franciscans have a responsibility to our fellow San Franciscans to ask for fairness and ethical values be enforced, and not let the Navy, the City government, or a developer take further advantage of one of our local tax paying communities.
add your comments
Save the Shipyard and Bayview Hunters Point
by Michaeal Boyd Wednesday, Dec. 31, 2003 at 6:43 PM
Hello, Mike Boyd of CAlifornians for Renewable Energy, Inc. (CARE) here. I prepared the following Resolution for CARE member Lynne Brown, which he presented at last month's shipyard Restoration Advisory Board meeting. The next RAB meeting is scheduled for Thursday January 22nd at 6 PM at the Shipyard. Unlike the thieves in high places that run your City government, we at CARE support an open community dialog on these issues, that is why Lynne released over a month in advance of the RABte on this Resolution on the 22nd. Any support for the resolution will be appreciated. Mark your calenders and please try to attend! MB Resolution #_______ Protest and Objection of the Hunters Point Shipyard Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) to the Redevelopment Commission action approving the Disposition Development Agreement (DDA) between CCSF and Lennar-BVHP for the Redevelopment of the Whereas; The City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) Redevelopment Commission took action at its December 2, 2003 meeting approving the Disposition Development Agreement (DDA) between the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and Lennar-BVHP for the Redevelopment of the Shipyard on a vote 5-0-0, despite objections from the affected community and members of the RAB. Also on a vote 5-0-0, on December 2, 2003 the RDA also adopted an amendment to a separate redevelopment proposal that mandated the forced dislocation of the low-income communities of color (predominantly African American) of Hunters Point , and Whereas; Prior to the RDA vote RAB Co-chair; Lynne Brown’s filed an objection and protest statement along with other RAB members to the RDA Commissioners and RDA executive director Marshal Rosen on December 2, 2003 as follows; “I am a resident of Bay View Hunters Point and Co-Chair of the Restoration Advisory Board. I object to the piecemealing the Redevelopment Agency is doing to the Bay View Hunters Point Community. The redevelopment of the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard and the Hunters Point Community is not separate projects because Hunters Point is the affected Community. The current processes as proposed disenfranchises the affected community. This is in violation of Title VI, The Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Restoration Advisory Board is entrusted to protect the Civil Rights of the affected community of Bay View Hunters Point. This means the affect community may file complaints with the Federal Government under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As representatives of the affected community the Restoration Advisory Board will not sign-off on the transfer of the Hunters Point Shipyard to the City and County of San Francisco until it can Certify compliance with the Civil Rights Act and the Base Closure Act. The Redevelopment Agency and its Commissioners should read the Base Closure Act, CERCLA, NEPA and prepare an EIR on their project.” Whereas; In order for the transfer of the shipyard to the RDA to take place, the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) must in behalf of the affected Hunters Point community insure compliance with all federal environmental, restoration, civil rights and base reuse laws (i.e., Laws Ordinance Regulations and Standards) including, but not limited to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.; 40 CFR Parts 300–311, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.; 40 CFR Parts 240–281, the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251–1387; 33 CFR Parts 320–330, 335–338; 40 CFR Parts 104–140, 230–233, 401–471; Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.; 40 CFR Parts 50, 60, 61, and 80, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300f–300j- 26; 40 CFR Parts 141–149, the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 (Redevelopment Act), Pub. L. 103-421; 32 CFR Part 176, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.; and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 28 U.S.C. § 1447, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1975a–1975d, 2000a– 2000h-6, and Whereas; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires CCSF, and the RDA, in coordination with the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to identify and address any disproportionately high and/or adverse human health, socioeconomic, or environmental impacts of their programs, policies, and actions on minority and/or low-income populations, and Whereas; The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the California law that allows the affected community to be informed and members of the public to voice their opinion about projects that may affect their environment. CEQA requires a review of the environmental impacts of projects. CEQA has a broad, strong right of public participation, which has a political component and the violation or deprivation of which has constitutional consequences to the affected community, and Whereas; In mandating separate project areas for the shipyard and the Hunters Point Community the RDA as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is being allowed to piecemeal the process which is analogous to the strongly forbidden “chopping up [of] a proposed project into bite-size pieces which, individually considered, might be found to have no significance on the environment.” (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 716, citing Orinda Assn. v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1145, 1171, 1172; see also Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d at 283-284; Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 309.) In the present case what we have is a chopping up of the CEQA duty to provide information that trivialize the nature and extent of the two project’s impacts. In addition, the piecemealing requires that the affected community and the RAB to respond, and allows the developer Lennar-BVHP to then reply, without any opportunity for reply by the affected community and the RAB, without requiring a comprehensive analysis, and without providing structure or finality to the process. And when the process gets near the end, strict time lines are imposed which create additional burdens on the RAB and other members of the public, further hindering if not completely preventing their full and meaningful participation in a process heavily weighed in favor of Lennar-BVHP with virtually unlimited resources whose only excuse for piecemealing the required information is to use it as a tactic to avoid or minimize opposition. Whereas; CEQA provides that a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment when the possible effects on the environment are individually limited but “cumulatively considerable.” (Pub. Resources Code, §21083(b); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, §15065.) “’Cumulatively considerable’ means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15065, emphasis added.) In addition to analyzing the direct impacts of a project, the CEQA Lead Agency must determine whether or not a project will result in a significant cumulative impact. Whereas; Recent statutory law has invigorated the utility of the California Environmental Quality Act as the procedural means for the CCSF RDA to ensure "the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies" (i.e., environmental justice).” In conjunction with the regulatory provisions of the federal Clean Air Act and Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code, CEQA provides an ideal mechanism for ensuring that environmental justice will be addressed in all activities and projects that may have a significant effect on the environment. Whereas; The California Environmental Quality Act requires that environmental documents (i.e., an environmental impact report [EIR] or a negative declaration or equivalent document) be prepared whenever a public agency proposes to undertake a discretionary activity that may have a significant effect on the environment. The Legislature has declared that all agencies that "regulate activities of private individuals, corporations, and public agencies which are found to affect the quality of the environment, shall regulate such activities so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage, while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian." Projects that are directly undertaken by public agencies are subject to the same level of accountability as private projects that require a permit or other governmental approval to proceed. Whereas; The recent enactment of Public Resources Code sections 71110 through 71115 and Government Code section 65040.12, in conjunction with the requirements of federal law, the SIP, and EPA regulations, require the RDA to infuse EJ into every aspect of decisionmaking. This panoply of statutory authority animates the general authority of the RDA to "do such acts as may be necessary for the proper execution of the powers and duties granted to, and imposed upon, the state board by this division [26 of the Health and Safety Code] and by any other provision of law." Further, the rules, regulations, and standards that the RDA adopts must be "consistent with the state goal of providing a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian" – and so, full circle back to CEQA. Therefore Be It Resolved, 1. The Bayview Hunters Point Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) hereby Adopts and Incorporates this day the above cited Protests and Objections of Lynne Brown and any other RAB member present at the December 2, 2003 RDA meeting, and 2. The RAB hereby authorizes this issuance to the US Navy, DoD, US and California EPA, and California Department of Toxic Substance Control, Notice that the RAB has determined the CCSF RDA to be in Noncompliance with the aforementioned statutes specifically with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 28 U.S.C. § 1447, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1975a–1975d, 2000a– 2000h-6, and the California Environmental Quality Act, with Notice in the Federal Register if available, and 3. The RAB will not sign-off on the transfer of the Hunters Point Shipyard to the City and County of San Francisco until it can Certify compliance with the Civil Rights Act, the Base Closure Act including but not limited to the aforementioned statutes. Vote Ayes Nays Abstentions ____ ____ ____
http://www.calfree.com
add your comments
Dismayed at Insensitivity to the Community Supervisors Action Required
by SF Resident Wednesday, Dec. 31, 2003 at 7:53 PM
The callous insensitivity by the developers, call for our Board of Supervisors to start an investigation of what is really going on at the Redevelopment Agency. The current administration has is known for not having any ethics. Their needs to be a return of that agency, (RDA) and their commissioners, to an ethical, morale standard representative of the people of San Francisco. They along with the current administration should be fully investigated and the money trail followed exposing their misdeeds. When evidence is found they should be charged and fully prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
The Board of Supervisors must adopt a new higher standard of ethics for the City and County with the City Attorney, corrupt commissions should not be allowed to exist, corrupt city department should have their budgets cut, and their heads brought before the board every chance they get. Corrupt and questionable developers should be encouraged to do business elsewhere, or be subject to ongoing investigations, prosecution and civil lawsuits by the city.
The enforcement of Environmental Justice and Environmental Racism Laws and reports should be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors, before it is enforced by lawsuits (civil and private) for them, giving the City a black eye. The Voters have said we want Ethical, Accountable Government Now! It is now in our Supervisors hands. You have a growing active San Franciscan base behind you.
add your comments
my expeience as an artist in San francisco
by an artist Wednesday, Dec. 31, 2003 at 9:28 PM
Having lived and worked in the Fillmore a fun vibrant community with other artist and musicians. Enjoying every day and the multi cultural people it was inspiring. They took that away, then I moved to a funky loft in the South of Market part of town, they took that away. I moved to Bayview –Hunters Point in a warehouse they took that away. Now several of my friends are in the shipyard they are worried about that being take away too despite hollow reassurances by the developer. Why are the developers so greedy?
We bring the spirit, then they want to capture the area without the spirit then they expect the art spirit to stay, the music, the art the love; however they kill whatever is there, the multi ethnic radiant mixture of people, and the spirit is loss. The new residents have to travel to where we are whether near or far to experience the spirit we have staying one step ahead of the developers, and the very greedy politicians. We support toxic free multi ethnic-cultural environments where there is a real spirit, so we can create our arts.
I am tired of moving, and staying one step of the greedy politicians, and developers without a spirit or soul. Just because we have spirits of love don’t think we are not going to fight, our fight is for the real spirit of San Francisco, room and love for all.
add your comments
Another example of environmental injustices in the Bayview
by David Erickson Friday, Jan. 02, 2004 at 7:03 PM
2 years and 2 months ago, SF Muni destroyed the Muwekma Ohlone Sanctuary on Islais Creek, during a drilling project under Islais Creek to install what they said were transmission lines for the Third Street Light Rail (which many of us locally call the "Third Street White Rail" ie gentrification and SF Redevlopment Agency,etc..)
This drilling caused the main sewer outfall pipe to collapse which was in the sanctuary, and required the excavation of nearly 40% of the park, which was also home to Pacific Chorus Frogs.
As a result of this excavation, the park lost $75,000 in federal grants for habitat restoration and environmental education.
Interestingly, the 3 transmission lines installed under the creek, were each approximetely 4 or 5 feet in diameter, and contain dozens of smaller cables labeled 120 KV, and 240 KV, are certainly not the kind of power required for a simple light electric rail, and we have heard that main purpose of these lines is for a new electric grid associated with PG&E and Mirant.
To date, not only is the park not restored, but the sewer pipe continues to sink, and the transmission lines work is incomplete. Despite having hired an environmental lawyer to seek costs for restoration of this habitat, SF Muni, nor PUC, no DPW, nor the drilling contractors ( Proven and Utility Boring) nor the Port of San Francisco has provided one dollar nor one hour of work towards restoring this precious habitat on Islais Creek.
Just another example of environmental neglect by our local buearcrocies.
Here are some links to older articles on this travesty:
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2001/11/110258.php
http://www.monkeyview.net/id/56/sewercollapse/index.vhtml
http://userhttp://www.sfsu.edu/%7Ej667/refuge.html
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object.cgi?object=/chronicle/pictures/2003/07/28/ba_islais.jpg&paper=chronicle&file=MN283123.DTL&directory=/c/a/2003/07/28&type=news
http://www.islaiscreek.org/sewerpipecollapseatislais.html
David Erickson
add your comments
Correction on link " Another Example of environmental injustices the Bayview...."
by David Erickson Friday, Jan. 02, 2004 at 8:02 PM
Please note that this link:
http://userhttp://www.sfsu.edu/%7Ej667/refuge.html
has been replaced with this link:
http://online.sfsu.edu/~j667/refuge.html
david
add your comments
Intentional Prejudice
by Spcial Scientist Saturday, Jan. 03, 2004 at 4:43 AM
San Francisco has taken a prejudicial stance to the community of Hunters Point, and its people. Let’s take the information that we currently know it has over 1000 toxic locations, with one location on the Federal Superfund list, one location on the State Superfund list.
Garbage Dumping is a known problem where people from other communities have dropped their garbage in that community.
Health Care with the highest hospitalization rates of anywhere in the city, and some of the highest in the state, the only health center is a Monday to Friday operation nine to five.
Energy the community is paying more than their share for energy, toxic living through pollution, high health care cost and then add in the regular cost of energy.
Police Enforcement; where gangs are not targeted, but where more of the residents and their children are targets.
No Major Retail Stores or Supermarkets, existent in that community.
Banks Redlined the community despite a CRA and a very high home ownership and tax base by the residents.
Jobs; a very high unemployment rate 16% plus, despite multiple local contracts.
Schools many children bussed out of the community.
Resource Center; a true lack of them for that community.
Sewage Treatment; a smell where the whole community, has experienced at one time or another
Public Housing many residential units boarded up for what ever reason.
Is this Prejudice?
add your comments
Response to "Intentional Prejudice"
by David Erickson Saturday, Jan. 03, 2004 at 8:39 PM
Thank you Social Scientist Saturday January 03, 2004 at 04:56 AM
Thank You for summarizing and publishing the obvious statistics that we all know, and yet not published by local mainstream media nor recognized by local government.
Please continue your good work
david
http://www.islaiscreek.org
add your comments
esponse to "Intentional Prejudice"
by david erickson Sunday, Jan. 04, 2004 at 12:05 PM
Thank You for summarizing and publishing the obvious statistics that we all know, and yet not published by local mainstream media nor recognized by local government.
Please continue your good work
david
add your comments
THE MAYOR'S LEGACY: WILLIE BROWN
by Lance Williams, Chronicle Staff Writer Sunday, Jan. 04, 2004 at 12:18 PM
What did it do to the community?
To his critics, it was a scene that characterized Willie Brown's City Hall just as surely as the mayor's sartorial splendor or his vaunted political skill: armed FBI agents descending on a city office, looking for municipal corruption.
That scene played out in public on a Friday afternoon in July 1999, when the FBI raided the city agency that monitors San Francisco's minority- contracting program, occupying the office for three days while agents hauled away truckloads of suspected evidence.
Investigators weren't always so public in their sleuthing. But for five years -- starting in 1998, and continuing as late as last month -- FBI agents conducted a wide-ranging corruption probe at City Hall, according to documents and interviews. From the start, witnesses who were interviewed said, agents seemed focused on the conduct of the mayor and some of his closest political allies.
Few prosecutions resulted, and Brown was never accused of wrongdoing. He charged that the investigations were politically motivated.
Over the years, agents served subpoenas on more than a dozen city departments, including the mayor's office at City Hall. At one point, court records reflected that a federal grand jury had convened and was scrutinizing more than $1 billion worth of city contracts for suspected improprieties.
In case after case, witnesses said the agents seemed intent on determining whether federal laws were being violated in the context of what Brown critics called the practice of "juice" politics at City Hall. It was a dynamic in which lobbyists, campaign donors and political players who had influence with the mayor seemed to hold the inside track on lucrative land deals, contracts and favorable regulatory decisions.
Witnesses interviewed by The Chronicle said a revolving team of more than two dozen agents worked the long-running probe.
Little to show
Despite the extraordinary scrutiny, authorities had little to show for their efforts. In five years, U.S. grand juries handed up only two corruption- related indictments. Only one city official -- a mid-level administrator accused in a bribery scandal at the Housing Authority - went to prison.
To Brown partisans, the lack of results verified what they had claimed all along: Brown ran a clean government and based decisions on merit. The unusually public way in which the FBI probe was conducted -- especially the raids and subpoenas during Brown's 1999 re-election campaign -- smacked of political interference, they said.
As Charlie Walker, a longtime Brown pal and self-described FBI target, once told a reporter: "If the FBI wanted to do something to me bad enough, rather than just make Willie Brown look bad, they would have stopped me on the street and taken me in."
But advocates of government reform contend that the FBI had every reason to scrutinize the way public business was conducted under Brown.
"The legacy of Willie Brown has been one of corruption and incompetence in government, and the probes were a reflection of that," said Fred Ridel, coordinator of the good-government group San Francisco Common Cause. He emphasized that he made his comments as a private citizen.
"Just because you don't find criminal activity you can prosecute doesn't mean everything is squeaky clean," Ridel continued. "There has been a lot of corruption, and some of it comes to the attention of law enforcement. People know about it."
Brown spokesman P.J. Johnston called the criticism irresponsible.
"The mayor's critics and opponents have lobbed so many accusations against him over the years, and none of them has been proven," he said. "That doesn't suggest guilt. If anything, it suggests how irresponsible and consistently bogus these accusations are."
Johnston also accused Brown's opponents of seeking to exploit what he styled "anxiety about African Americans in positions of power'' by making unfounded charges.
"That anxiety is often exploited by lobbing charges of corruption and cronyism that eventually fall short," he said.
The dealmaker
At issue in the investigations was the way Brown adapted his deal-making style of insider politics to governing San Francisco. The style was pure Sacramento, honed during 15 years when Brown, as speaker of the Assembly, established his reputation as a consummate political player. It had attracted FBI attention before.
Almost from the day he became speaker in 1980, Brown became a focus of an overlapping series of FBI corruption investigations, according to court records and interviews.
In the most famous, the FBI ran a sting operation involving a fake shrimp- fishing company whose executives -- actually undercover agents -- promised to pay lawmakers to ram special-interest bills through the Legislature.
The sting and cases related to it produced a dozen indictments. But Brown was never charged with wrongdoing.
In 1998, two years after he became mayor, the FBI was looking at Brown again, records show.
At first, agents probed how Brown appointees on the Airport Commission had come to award a contract to build a $116 million "people mover" transit system at SFO. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of America, the low bidder, lost out to a competitor called Adtranz after the latter gave a $10 million subcontract to business consultant James Jefferson, a fund-raiser and friend of the mayor.
That probe, in part, focused on allegations that Zula Jones, a city employee and a friend of Jefferson, had helped steer the contract to Adtranz, records show. Jones was an official at the Human Rights Commission, the contract-compliance agency that later became the target of the FBI raid. Jones, Jefferson and Adtranz said they had done nothing wrong and no charges were ever filed.
Minority contracting
After that, court records show, the FBI began examining a long list of city contracts, permits and development deals. Many involved suspected abuse of the minority contracting program, set up to ensure an equitable share of city contracts go to businesses owned by disadvantaged minorities and women.
The agents took a close look at Walker, a trucking contractor who was Brown's former law client and his longtime friend and political backer. In 1984, Walker had been sent to prison for bilking the city's minority contracting program.
But in the years after Brown was elected mayor, city records show, Walker obtained a share of more than $800,000 worth of city trucking subcontracts at the airport. Most came via the same minority contracting program he had been convicted of abusing.
Later, the FBI sought information on Ron Tutor, head of the giant Tutor- Saliba Corp. construction company, lead contractor on the $2.8 billion airport expansion project undertaken during Brown's term. Tutor was a Brown political donor, and he had been implicated but not charged in the 1984 case, court records show.
Neither Walker nor Tutor was charged in the airport contracts probe. Tutor said the FBI had no reason to investigate him. The FBI probe "seems to have a life of its own," Tutor said at one point. "It would be humorous if it wasn't so sad."
The probe later turned to other city deals, including a series of multimillion-dollar management contracts obtained by Jacqueline Besser, wife of a former law associate of Brown, Stephen Besser. Again, no charges were ever brought. She declined comment for this story.
Agents also spent months probing the city's decision to approve the expansion of the giant Sutro Tower. Neighborhood groups had complained that Brown ordered the project approved at the behest of lobbyists for the broadcasting consortium that owns it.
In 2000, three weeks after Brown's second inaugural, the FBI served his office with a grand jury subpoena for records of meetings between Brown and Jefferson, Walker, the Bessers and others involved in city contracting.
Only 2 indictments
In the end, federal grand juries handed up only two corruption indictments.
In one, Housing Authority administrator Patricia Williams was accused of taking bribes in exchange for federal rent subsidies meant for poor people.
Williams, a career city employee and wife of a Baptist minister, was convicted after testimony by her former aide, Yolanda Jones, daughter of Charlie Walker and self-described goddaughter of Brown. Jones, who had pleaded guilty, testified she did no work for her city salary, but spent her days collecting bribe money that she split with Williams.
Williams protested her innocence, but she was convicted, and in 2001 she was sentenced to five years in federal prison -- the lone city official imprisoned during Brown's term.
"She was a scapegoat," says her husband, the Rev. Michael Williams. "I see Willie on occasion, and he doesn't look me in the eye."
In the other case, three officials of the Scott Co., a white-owned construction firm in San Leandro, were accused of using a phony minority "front company" to win $64 million in airport construction contracts intended for minority concerns.
Indicted with the executives was Hunters Point plumber, Al Norman, a Brown backer and paroled murderer who allegedly served as the Scott Co.'s front man. Also indicted was Zula Jones, the Human Rights Commission official involved in the airport people-mover contract that began the broader FBI investigation.
But the Scott case unraveled when a federal judge ruled that evidence seized in the FBI's high-profile raid on the commission office couldn't be used in court. The agents should have obtained a search warrant before entering Jones' office, the judge ruled.
In 2001, charges against Jones, Norman and two of the Scott Co. executives were dropped. The company itself paid $2 million in fines and restitution, and one company executive, Robert Nurisso, was sentenced to house arrest.
No other cases brought
Although agents continued to contact witnesses, no other cases were ever brought. Last month, witnesses said, agents were asking about alleged misconduct involving the issuance of permits by the Department of Building Inspection.
Witnesses said that from the start, the probe seemed beset with difficulties. Although the bureau devoted significant resources to the probe - - as many as two dozen agents at a time, two witnesses estimated -- San Francisco politics and government contracting issues are complex, and often, by the time agents seemed up to speed, they would be promoted or transferred, and a new agent would come in and start from scratch, witnesses said.
One official said that at long intervals, he was interviewed by three different FBI agents. Each one asked virtually identical questions about the same issues and cast of characters, and each one explained that the previous agent had been reassigned.
"We were always starting at square one,'' the official said.
E-mail Lance Williams at lwilliams [at] sfchronicle.com
What were the effects on BVHP?
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/04/MNG8F3L5CM41.DTL
add your comments
THE MAYOR'S LEGACY: WILLIE BROWN (Subset)
by Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Staff Writer Sunday, Jan. 04, 2004 at 12:39 PM
How Did This Impact BVHP?
"You've got to take affirmative steps
Let's stop Racism now!
Has Bayview Hunters Point conditions or gotten worst over the past 8 years for its Residents? Well according to the Original Human Rights Commission Report "The Unfinished Agenda", the Grand Jury Report, the report on "Environmental Justice" by the San Francisco State University Journalism Department, UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, and the New Human Rights Commission Report on "Environmental Racism". Basically that community is living under the worst kind of Racism of a modern progressive city in the United States.
Will the new Mayoral Administration address these important reports or will their be a continuing rip off of Hunters Point residents of their rights, their environment, their opportunity and a suppression of the community?
This is something the rest of the liberal City of San Francisco should focus on now, it makes no sense to suppress a multi cultural community of color with over 35,000 residents. When you read the reports make a judgment from your heart is this acceptable behavior in modern times? Look at the historic information, you be the judge. Why should fellow San Franciscans have to endure this kind of sub third world treatment in the year 2003 soon to be 2004.
We suggest you call or write the Board of Supervisors, the Mayors Office, the state and federal officials and let them know that this is not acceptable behavior for the Community residents of San Francisco to endure this type of Environmental injustice and racism today. That community has had the largest home ownership which means that they pay more than their fair share of taxes, read the reports and you determine if they have had the benefit of their taxes or have they been abused. Would you accept those conditions for yourself or your family?
Lets get active the San Francisco Resident of Hunters Point need your help to stop the racial injustice, the environmental injustice, the racism of the past and help their community to become equal partners in San Francisco. Say no to Environmental Injustice, Environmental Racism and say yes to Environmental Justice.
All of these independent report are available on http://mecresources.com/environment.htm or go to http://mecresources.com and then click on environment. Their you will see more than enough confirmation of facts by city agencies, university journalism departments etc.
Get active, the Children of Hunters Point Community need your help.
mecresources.com/environment.htm
add your comments
More History on Hunters Point
by the S.F Community Friday, Dec. 26, 2003 at 1:40 PM
printable version - email this article
View article without comments
Lets stop Environmental Injustice/Racism in Hunters Point
by Maurice Campbell & Barbara George Friday December 26, 2003 at 11:57 AM
mecsoft [at] pacbell.net 415.468-8964
Let's stop Racism now!
Has Bayview Hunters Point conditions or gotten worst over the past 8 years for its Residents? Well according to the Original Human Rights Commission Report The Unfinished Agenda, the Grand Jury Report, the report on Environmental Justice by the San Francisco State University Journalism Department, UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, and the New Human Rights Commission Report on Environmental Racism. Basically that community is living under the worst kind of Racism of a modern progressive city in the United States.
Will the new Mayoral Administration address these important reports or will their be a continuning rip off of Hunters Point residents of their rights, their environment, their opportunity and a suppression of the community?
This is something the rest of the liberal City of San Francisco should focus on now, it makes no sense to suppress a multi cultural community of color with over 35,000 residents. When you read the reports make a judgement from your heart is this acceptable behaviour in modern times? Look at the historic information, you be the judge. Why should fellow San Franciscans have to endure this kind of sub third world treatment in the year 2003 soon to be 2004.
We suggest you call or write the Board of Supervisors, the Mayors Office, the state and federal officials and let them know that this is not acceptable behaviour for the Community residents of San Francisco to endure this type of Environmental injustice and racism today. That community has had the largest home ownership which means that they pay more than their fair share of taxes, read the reports and you determine if they have had the benefit of their taxes or have they been abused. Would you accept those conditions for yourself or your family?
Lets get active the San Francisco Resident of Hunters Point need your help to stop the racial injustice, the environmental injustice, the racism of the past and help their community to become equal partners in San Francisco. Say no to Environmental Injustice, Environmental Racism and say yes to Environmental Justice.
All of these independent report are available on http://mecresources/environment.htm or go to http://mecresources.com and then click on environment. Their you will see more than enough confirmation of facts by city agencies, university journalism departments etc.
Get active, the Children of Hunters Point Community need your help.
mecresources.com/environment.htm
add your comments
Link correction
by Maurice Campbell & Barbara George Friday December 26, 2003 at 12:07 PM
mecsoft [at] pacbell.net
A correction to the link
mecresources.com/environment.htm
add your comments
More info that you should add
by da community Friday December 26, 2003 at 12:26 PM
audio: MP3 at 690.7 kibibytes
you should add the following links to your story they show another pattern of racism!
http://www.indybay.org/news/?category=&medium=audio
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/12/1663431.php
http://www.sf-frontlines.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=502&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/11/1662197.php
http://www.sfbayview.com/112603/redevelopment112603.shtml
add your comments
Documentation supporting links
by Maurice Campbell & Barbara George Friday, Dec. 26, 2003 at 2:15 PM
Here are the environmental justice/racism supporting links
http://mecresources.com/unfinished.htm "The Unfinished Agenda". The Grand Jury Report http://mecresources.com/SFGov%20Superior%20Court%20Hunters%20Point%20Naval%20Shipyard,%20released%20June%202002.htm The San Francisco State Journalism Project on Hunter Point http://online.sfsu.edu/~j667/news.htm UC Berkekeley graduate School of Journalism "Growing up Policed in Hunters Point" Suspicions Rise http://online.sfsu.edu/~j667/rab.html The New Human Rights commision report on Environmental Racism http;//mecresources.com/envirorace.htm These reports should confirm the history of racism that has been placed upon Hunters Point multi cultural community.
add your comments
We will be active
by San Francisco People (Nancy) Friday, Dec. 26, 2003 at 3:04 PM
I am appalled that a politician from San Francisco played the race and gender card. Look at what he has allowed to happen to his own people
add your comments
Institutional Racism by the City of San Francisco
by Ellen Friday, Dec. 26, 2003 at 3:18 PM
What the reports shows is a pattern of racism inflicted on the Hunters Point community, much like what they are doing to the homeless population. Shame, shame on San Francisco government and its leaders. If people chose to turn a blind eye to this problem lets remove them from office, and fire the city department heads that are allowing this to take place. This has to change this is not the deep south, this is San Francisco.
add your comments
A Democratic Party Failure
by Patrick Friday, Dec. 26, 2003 at 4:03 PM
What this shows is a general Democratic Party failure in protecting its members from Hunter Point. The party structure seems to have changed only doing the bidding of the rich and powerful. Forget about working class people or people of color, no wonder they are losing elections. How many of our elected officials will stay around if they don't get our vote, I think several of them need our single vote. Please take this as a reminder we are watching your stances. We want representation for the people of Hunters Point too and we are not just talking local.
add your comments
Politicians remember Prop P
by Cammden Friday, Dec. 26, 2003 at 4:26 PM
When we backed Hunter Point with 87% of our San Francisco votes to "Clean Up the Shipyard to Residential Standards" we didn't abandon the people of Hunters Point. We are not going to do it now, so politicians beware if you want to stay in office do something to help that community or we will help you out of office.
add your comments
Thanks for the weeklys and the independent media
by Kyle Friday, Dec. 26, 2003 at 4:56 PM
Thanks to the independent media for covering these stories. We would have had no idea what is going on locally. The main stream papers seem to be part of the city's coverup of these very important news stories. it reminds me of old southern publications. Racism, racism, racism more sophisticated but still racism. We are for all the Journalistic awards going to small and independent media that cover the news, all the news.
add your comments
hats off to the Bayview Newspaper
by Ron Friday, Dec. 26, 2003 at 7:32 PM
After looking at some of the links and reading what the Bayview Newspaper had to say in their editorials. The picture becomes even more clear that racism has taken a new tact.
Why is the city allowing this to happen?
Where is Boxer, Finestein, and Pelosi?
add your comments
WORD !
by Mesha Monge-Irizarry Friday, Dec. 26, 2003 at 10:43 PM
iolmisha [at] cs.com (415) 595-8251 The Green House on 3rd St
You tell the truth!
We, in BVHP live in the SF neighborhood that has the best weather and views! A a matter of fact, a ship with a giant Newsom sign on his side, packed with "sophisticated" onlookers, was sighted cruising China Basin all the way to 3COM Park and back to the Bay Bridge 4 days before the elections...Cruising the upcoming gentrified Basin, prey of the pimps of the poor.
If their plan succeed, then our City Government will eagerly clean up the land field, the ship yard, insure top-quality air control, create more phenomenal opportunities for rich white folks to bring their booming, upscale, exclusive business to BVHP...
Under the "Imminent Domain" ordinance, the City can force us, commercial property owners, to sell at lowest market value (we are the cheapest in the city!) or else...CONFISCATE !
Many folks in our district are already selling hastily, compounding the massive departure of African American from SF in the past decade, scared to end up below poverty level after several generations of hard work. To go where? Treasure Island? Seemingly the next concentrationary hell of poor people of color, isolated, no cultural outlets, 1 bus in and out (none at night), trapped and bound to increased criminality and deprivation (remember when a Native American tribe reclaimed Alcatraz and was wiped out by tuberculosis within a few years?)
Why should the city car about us ? They want us out of Hunters Point. Beside the upcoming gentrification through the lightrail, many factors are precipitating our fate:
* Apathy of DPH addressing aggressively the overwhelming genocidal pollution in our district : Highest rates in the city of breast cancer, lymphoma, asthma and acute respiratory diseases caused by the pollution level at he shipyard, and since April 2003, the lightrail excavation: we are actually breathing RADIUM, released by the corpses of the buried horses utilized during the atomic experiments...No respiratory precautions have been publicized by the subcontractors for their workers, let alone us residents ! 47% of birth defects affecting newborn babies are documented to be BVHP statistics! Do I smell Taskigui?
* Lack of training, job placement and job opportunities, compounding our youth at risk criminality rate. The vontractors, upon injunction of our Board of Supervisors, agreed to make a "good faith effort" (admire the evasiveness of the language...) to hire BVHP residents. So they hire 70 (mostly flag holders at minimal rate), then laid off 60 two weeks later. Nothing to it: they made their honest good faith effort in hiring, the Supervisors recommendation did not include anything about RETAINING these workers.
* Massive increase of the criminalization through police harassment, often times under false pretenses of investigating a possible drug operation (cf: August 25, Middle Point Road, where guns where pointed at small children, a mother was addressed "Black b...." and threatened to be shot when she tried to protect her 14 yr. son who was severely beaten), regardless of the previous scandal of police brutality on our children on Kiska Road on MLK day in 2002...
* On going virtual impossibility for BVHP residents who want to purchase their first home to obtain a loan from our local banks
Our city government dirty laundry list goes on and on when it comes to Bayview Hunters Point.
But we can stop the racist, genocidal process ! We can stop the eradication of BVHP village !
This coming Sunday, December 28, Please tune on 103.3 FM, Bayview Hunters Point Community Radio, to listen to Maurice Campbell and Lynn Brown live on "No Pigs in DA Hood !" at 6 P.M.
And remember, silence and economic division kills. We will not tolerate another Fillmore eradication of the African American community !
Maurice, Barbara, we are down with you ! And many more are joining, venceremos !
mesha, Idriss Stelley Foundation.
justice4idriss.org
add your comments
The Forgotten Community
by Lynne Brown Friday, Dec. 26, 2003 at 10:59 PM
The Forgotten Community
by Lynne Brown Friday December 26, 2003 at 10:55 PM
L_Brown123 [at] hotmail.com 415-285-4628
Hunters Point is a low-income community of color,and we have been terrorized and disfranchise by the right wing Democrats since the closing of the Hunters Point Shipyard in 1974. During the pass eight years, 20,000 African Americans have left or were relocated out of San Francisco with help from the Federal, (HUD) State, (Redevelopment Agency) and Local (Project Area Committee) Governments. With unemployment at 16% today in Hunters Point, 85% of the contracts for new project developments in San Francisco goes to friends of the Right Wing Democrats. My community is riddle with fraud, corruption, malfeasance, favoritism, and civil rights violations. These Right Wing Democrats don't understand. They took an oath to govern not jump into the bed with big business, developers, and profit for themselves. We need the FBI and the U.S. Attorney General to start their investigation at the Gatekeepers place of business. City Hall 401 Polk St. San Francisco, California
sftimes.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$16
add your comments
Where are the Civil Rights Activists? "
by Ms. K. Lutton Saturday, Dec. 27, 2003 at 12:40 AM
kevyn11 [at] yahoo.com
"Where are the Civil Rights Activists?'' They are here!The resident activists are here. Maurice Campbell tells the story .
Environmental justice: air borne toxins, redevelopment's aggressive march of gentrification, insufficient health care clinics, no jobs, ghettos created by City planning (Put everyone who suffers from despair, or who who have been entranced by commercial promotions of consumerism while living the realities of a poor person's life.) Then let them sicken and die or get killed or kill each other. The final blow will be to take out 30% of all Black males and imprison them for a crime they may or have may not committed. Police, aside from many positive purposes they serve, are the instruments of removal, out of sight of poor people, ailing people, and among them especially Blacks and Latinos. This high stress environment causes circulatory illnesses, heart disease, diabetes, and mental illness. Three African American men in psychiatric crises were shot dead by S. F. Police in the the resent past. The community is being attacked on multiple fronts at the same time. Please listen to what Maurice Campbell and Barbara George have to ask you and do something today. This hard working community has a difficult time getting the attention it deserves at City Hall. Advocates from other districts are respectfully called upon to amplify our voices.
Kevyn Lutton
add your comments
the Sellouts
by the community Saturday, Dec. 27, 2003 at 9:39 AM
We the people of Hunters Point are aware of several individuals, who have sold out by accepting money from unscrupulous operations and saying they represent the community. The only people they represent are themselves and their pockets, not the community. We have even seen some of their names on Newsome's transition team. We have a so called white leader using a false name saying he represents the black community, the authorities know his real name just the general community doesn't, and he has accepted money to peddle influence in the community. Look at the people who were convicted for crooked dealing; they had close ties to City Hall. This information is common knowledge in the community. Be sure the community is ready to start naming names of these sellouts who have lined their greedy little paws and pockets, many of them have done this for years. Some have seen the light and redeemed themselves from continuing a bad action. The media should do an in-depth investigation and start naming them. The media should also run a survey of city services and ask the community which ones are serving the community and which ones are using a political agenda to suppress the residents. We would not be shocked at the results. That survey should also apply to political represenentives which ones the community feels are helping the community, which ones the community feel are not. The survey need to be done by a truly independent group, not a paid special interest group. Investigations need to be called for where has all the money destined for Hunters Point gone, we know it didn't get to Hunters Point. E.g. Airport jobs, Muni jobs, Navy jobs, the list goes on. Just promises no real action, however the sellouts got paid to represent the community.
This has to stop; Bayview Hunters Point deserves better, not false promises.
add your comments
Remember This Story
by Chronicle Arcives Saturday, Dec. 27, 2003 at 12:22 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soft-Money Campaigns Didn't Sway Voters
$1.3 million couldn't save Brown's allies
Ilene Lelchuk, Chronicle Staff Writer Thursday, December 14, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco -- Mayor Willie Brown's allies in corporate San Francisco spent more than $302,500 -- $28 per vote -- to help Board of Supervisors candidate Linda Richardson in District 10.
And she still lost.
The same big businesses, builders, restaurant owners and a coalition of neighborhood merchants opened their wallets and rolled out what amounted to $25 per vote for District 6 candidate Chris Dittenhafer and about $13 per vote for Juanita Owens.
They lost, too.
"It reminds me of the Beatles song lyric 'Money can't buy me love,' " said Ken Cleaveland from the Building Owners and Managers Association of San Francisco. His group donated roughly $50,000 to independent expenditure committees that paid for mailers, bus shelter ads and phone banks in the candidates' behalf.
Reports show the unprecedented "soft money" spent so far on 14 of the 18 supervisors candidates who qualified for Tuesday's runoff election hit more than $1.3 million -- an expensive first for supervisors races. That total is likely to grow when the final expenditures are reported.
Most of that money, which was raised and spent independently from each candidate's own campaign, went to political moderates supported by the mayor who were resoundingly defeated by a disparate group of progressives making corporate San Francisco wring its collective hands with worry.
"I think most of the business community is shell-shocked right now," said Cleaveland, whose organization represents the owners of about 300 buildings.
"Worst case, we fear more taxes . . . like the taxes proposed by Supervisor Tom Ammiano four or five years ago," he said. "I think the corporate business community is holding its breath."
Their fears may be grounded in reality.
"Of course, taxes are on my mind," District 6 winner Chris Daly said.
The low-income housing fees that the city charges downtown developers are way too low, he said. And he likes Ammiano's old proposals to tax downtown businesses to help pay for Muni as well as creating a property transfer tax, which he would apply to land that changes hands within an extremely short period of time.
"Certainly, we need to do something about this flipping of properties to cut down on real estate prospecting," Daly said.
The business community also has other concerns now that many of the candidates they backed -- Richardson, Dittenhafer, Supervisor Amos Brown, Supervisor Michael Yaki, Juanita Owens and Lawrence Wong -- lost.
The Committee on Jobs and BOMA will watch closely how the new board tackles development issues and try to open lines of communication with the new supervisors.
Many of the board winners supported Proposition L, a stringent growth- control measure aimed at dot-com offices, while many of the losers supported the mayor's opposing Proposition K, a more lenient control plan. Both measures lost in November, although voters narrowly defeated Proposition L.
"It's obvious that the issues are around the growth of this city," said Nathan Nayman, executive director of the Committee on Jobs, which represents some of the city's biggest companies such as the Gap. The group spent roughly $250,000 on candidates in the general and runoff elections.
Cleaveland added, "There is no question that Proposition L is going to come back and the people who vote in San Francisco have clearly said 'let's slow down on development.' And that's something the business community is going to have to look at pretty hard and live with."
Kathleen Harrington, president of the Golden Gate Restaurant Owners Association, which spent almost $60,000 on some of those candidates, said her members are concerned about future attempts by the new board to expand a living-wage law. And she wonders how the new board will deal with nuisance complaints about noise, smoking and late hours at bars and restaurants.
Winner Sophie Maxwell in District 10 saw no soft money spent in her behalf compared with the roughly $28 per vote for opponent Richardson's benefit during the general election and runoff campaigns. And in District 6, special interest groups including the Labor Council spent only about $1.10 per vote in behalf of winner Chris Daly.
add your comments
Interview with Olin Webb
by community Saturday, Dec. 27, 2003 at 8:20 PM
Ironically, one possible savior of the region is the
U.S. Naval Shipyard, the moloch that created
Bayview-Hunters Point a half century ago, but brutally
poisoned her in the succeeding decades. Five hundred
fifty acres of military land is being handed over to
the city prime bayside real estate, a dazzling spread
that's worth astronomical millions. City Hall has
concocted its own elaborate blueprint (developed by
white guys, of course), which includes restaurants,
shops, a sports park, an African American market, and
a public plaza, with 8,000 new jobs and 1,800 new
homes. This sounds like something the locals need,
right?
"Wrong," says Webb. His contention is that at least 50
percent of the property should be delivered to the
Community First Coalition for Hunters Point Shipyard,
a synthesis of the area's activist organizations and
citywide reform groups like the Urban Habitat Program.
Their plan for the shipyard would be to "first clean
that rascal up" so that residents would no longer be contaminated by the Navy's clandestine pollutants. After that, light-industry jobs, homes, and live/work multimedia units would be created to specifically benefit Bayview-Hunters Point residents. "We just want it to be owned and controlled by the community," says Webb. "We can help ourselves if we're given the opportunity."
It would be a historic, utopian gesture if the city
agreed to Webb's plan. But does San Francisco really
care even a smidgen about racial and economic
diversity? Can its policy of neglect and exploitation
be reversed? City Hall needs to decide quickly, before
the city's blue-collar African American population
vanishes. Will the future redeem us, or is it already
too late?
add your comments
Ethics panel eyes redevelopment role in Hunters Point
by Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross Sunday, Dec. 28, 2003 at 11:45 AM
Ethics panel eyes redevelopment role in Hunters Point
Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross Monday, March 17, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco -- The trio whose habit of voting together on controversial items has tagged them the "Pep Boys" of the San Francisco Redevelopment Commission -- Benny Yee, Leroy King and Darshan Singh -- were all hit with subpoenas from the city's ethics watchdog agency this past week.
Soon to join the list: City Hall insider Susan Horsfall, who works for the law firm that represents Lennar Corp. -- the developer that won the right to take over the old Hunters Point shipyard.
No one at the Ethics Commission is talking, but word among Redevelopment insiders is that a complaint came in more than a year ago alleging that Horsfall and the Pep Boys appeared to be a little too close for comfort -- often dining out together after meetings.
Right around the time, it seems, that the commission -- including the Pep Boys -- voted to disregard its consultant's findings and award the rights to develop the shipyard to Lennar.
"This is all about those same old stories about us getting gifts and dinners," King said. "It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now."
An Ethics Commission investigation isn't criminal -- but it can refer its findings to the district attorney.
For her part, Horsfall told us she has "no idea what any of this is about. We haven't had dinner together in over a year, so any reference to that is old news."
Maybe -- but from the looks of things, it's about to become news again.
SOS HOM: Real estate broker, political fund-raiser and Chinatown bigwig Ben Hom's appointment to the San Francisco Port Commission appears to be sinking as fast as the Titanic.
"I only count four votes -- he needs six," said one member of the Board of Supervisors.
That's a far cry from the seven supervisors who gave Hom the initial nod of approval a couple of months back.
But then, that was before the press had a field day revealing Hom's conflict-of-interest problems when he was on the Redevelopment and Public Utilities commissions.
"As it stands, he's got four choices," the supervisor said.
"Withdraw. Lose the vote Tuesday. Have it sent back to committee to die slowly. Or put it off until next week when (Supervisor Chris Daly) returns."
Although waiting for Daly would just be delaying the inevitable, since Hom would still come up one vote short.
MUNI MELTING: With all the attention focused on San Francisco's police crisis, it's largely escaped public notice that the Municipal Railway is having its own minor meltdown as well.
Just about the time the police indictments were being handed up, the Muni was hit with a three-day worker sickout -- one that resulted in dozens of runs being canceled.
According to an internal memo by Muni General Manager Michael Burns, "in a sudden and unexpected move, large numbers of operators failed to report to work or called in sick" during the first three days of March.
So instead of the typical seven missed runs on Saturday, the first day of the reported sickout, there were 80.
The next day there were 57 missed runs, compared with the usual 10 for a Sunday. Among other things, only half of the city's 18 cable cars made it out of the barn.
And on Monday -- when traffic is heaviest -- the Muni missed 50 runs, compared with the usual 18.
The motivation behind the sickouts appears to be the cash-strapped Muni's attempt to cut millions of dollars in worker overtime, job perks and other sacred labor practices.
Union representatives didn't want to be quoted, but privately they accused Burns of wielding the ax without consulting them.
They also emphatically denied there had been any work stoppage or sickout whatsoever.
Muni is grappling with a $16 million budget hole this year, which is projected to deepen to $52 million next year.
In response, the officials have proposed fare hikes, increased parking fines and higher city parking garage rates to raise the money.
But boss Burns also ordered an across-the-board elimination of overtime -- a serious blow to drivers who have grown accustomed to making the extra money.
And then there's his behind-the-scenes push to require all drivers to actually get out and drive.
Now that may sound strange, but as a result of a practice dating back some 30 years, the Muni has seven drivers on the payroll who conduct union business full time.
And not only do the seven union reps not drive -- they are guaranteed one hour of overtime a day.
The city's cost for this unusual little benefit: about $65,000 a year per worker, or nearly a half-million dollars overall.
School daze: It's been brought to our attention that while more than 1,100 possible layoff notices were going to teachers and staff in Oakland over the weekend, schools Superintendent Dennis Chaconas was hosting a fair Saturday aimed at -- yes, producing more teachers.
Of course, school officials emphasized that the four-hour "Teacher Reception and Credential Fair" at Jack London's Waterfront Hotel wasn't about hiring, since there are "no open positions."
No -- just lots of friendly college reps promising a rewarding career in education.
And finally: An update on the San Francisco Police Department from the home answering machine of Supervisor and mayoral hopeful Tom Ammiano: "Greetings. You've reached the acting, temporary, assistant, transitional, virtual shadow, unindictable but suspicious protege of the chief of police.
"May we help you?"
Chronicle columnists Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross appear Sundays, Mondays and Wednesdays. They can also be heard on KGO Radio on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. Phil Matier can be seen regularly on KRON-TV. Got a tip? Call them at (415) 777-8815 or drop them an e-mail at matierandross [at] sfchronicle.com.
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/03/17/BA202893.DTL
add your comments
Time to Sue San Francisco in a Class Action Lawsuit
by The Community Monday, Dec. 29, 2003 at 5:42 PM
The combined reports showing Environmental Injustice/Racism with a predominace of evidence from government agencies and other sources show that a Class Action Lawsuit should be filed against the City of San Francisco. It is a case that could be won, because of the factual historic evidence. It is time for the Hunters Point/Bayview community to start gathering signatures and filing a lawsuit against the City. Hunters Point, Bayview the time is now to sign on to the Class Actionpetition to sue. it would be most interesting to see the city defend against the Grand Jury Report, The Human Rights Commission Reports, The University Journalism Reports and the Newspaper accounts of their own Environmental Injustice/Racism.
add your comments
Navy contracting with the local community leaves a lot to be desired
by Maurice Campbell Wednesday, Dec. 31, 2003 at 10:46 AM
The Navy’s contracting program for the clean up of Hunters Point Shipyard utilizing local community companies/contractors has been less than stellar. Of over $300 million spent on hunters Point Shipyard less than $18 million has gone to local contractors. Many Prime Contractors and sub contractors have bypassed the local community altogether, despite laws that state local communities (impacted) should get a preference. This is how you keep a community economically depressed. Why isn’t our Federal legislative body weighing in on this miscarriage of justice? This community’s people have suffered the health impacts of living in a toxic, radiological environment, exposures to numerous shipyard fires, polluted groundwater, and high levels of compromised air. When is enough, enough?
The Navy has to institute a good neighbor policy bring fairness to remediation cleanup up opportunities for the local community, after all the community suffered from the negative effects of living under the Navy’s irresponsible toxic exposure. What is there to lose by incorporating the local community through jobs, contracts etc.?
To further disenfranchise the community an out of town developer seems to be the incumbent for the development of the shipyard with the current administration support, however not the communities. At the same time San Francisco Redevelopment Agency is looking at expanding the Hunters Point Project Area from 137 Acres by 1600 acres for a total of 1737 acres, Remember a project area is considered a blighted area, which can be bulldozed and Redeveloped, which is most of Hunters Point. Their goes the Hunter Point neighborhood, remember the Fillmore, at least their people didn’t suffer the near genocidal environment before they were evicted from their neighborhood.
Hunters Point Bayview need your support to bring fairness to their state of siege of Environmental Injustice and Environmental Racism. We as San Franciscans have a responsibility to our fellow San Franciscans to ask for fairness and ethical values be enforced, and not let the Navy, the City government, or a developer take further advantage of one of our local tax paying communities.
add your comments
Save the Shipyard and Bayview Hunters Point
by Michaeal Boyd Wednesday, Dec. 31, 2003 at 6:43 PM
Hello, Mike Boyd of CAlifornians for Renewable Energy, Inc. (CARE) here. I prepared the following Resolution for CARE member Lynne Brown, which he presented at last month's shipyard Restoration Advisory Board meeting. The next RAB meeting is scheduled for Thursday January 22nd at 6 PM at the Shipyard. Unlike the thieves in high places that run your City government, we at CARE support an open community dialog on these issues, that is why Lynne released over a month in advance of the RABte on this Resolution on the 22nd. Any support for the resolution will be appreciated. Mark your calenders and please try to attend! MB Resolution #_______ Protest and Objection of the Hunters Point Shipyard Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) to the Redevelopment Commission action approving the Disposition Development Agreement (DDA) between CCSF and Lennar-BVHP for the Redevelopment of the Whereas; The City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) Redevelopment Commission took action at its December 2, 2003 meeting approving the Disposition Development Agreement (DDA) between the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and Lennar-BVHP for the Redevelopment of the Shipyard on a vote 5-0-0, despite objections from the affected community and members of the RAB. Also on a vote 5-0-0, on December 2, 2003 the RDA also adopted an amendment to a separate redevelopment proposal that mandated the forced dislocation of the low-income communities of color (predominantly African American) of Hunters Point , and Whereas; Prior to the RDA vote RAB Co-chair; Lynne Brown’s filed an objection and protest statement along with other RAB members to the RDA Commissioners and RDA executive director Marshal Rosen on December 2, 2003 as follows; “I am a resident of Bay View Hunters Point and Co-Chair of the Restoration Advisory Board. I object to the piecemealing the Redevelopment Agency is doing to the Bay View Hunters Point Community. The redevelopment of the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard and the Hunters Point Community is not separate projects because Hunters Point is the affected Community. The current processes as proposed disenfranchises the affected community. This is in violation of Title VI, The Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Restoration Advisory Board is entrusted to protect the Civil Rights of the affected community of Bay View Hunters Point. This means the affect community may file complaints with the Federal Government under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As representatives of the affected community the Restoration Advisory Board will not sign-off on the transfer of the Hunters Point Shipyard to the City and County of San Francisco until it can Certify compliance with the Civil Rights Act and the Base Closure Act. The Redevelopment Agency and its Commissioners should read the Base Closure Act, CERCLA, NEPA and prepare an EIR on their project.” Whereas; In order for the transfer of the shipyard to the RDA to take place, the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) must in behalf of the affected Hunters Point community insure compliance with all federal environmental, restoration, civil rights and base reuse laws (i.e., Laws Ordinance Regulations and Standards) including, but not limited to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.; 40 CFR Parts 300–311, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.; 40 CFR Parts 240–281, the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251–1387; 33 CFR Parts 320–330, 335–338; 40 CFR Parts 104–140, 230–233, 401–471; Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.; 40 CFR Parts 50, 60, 61, and 80, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300f–300j- 26; 40 CFR Parts 141–149, the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 (Redevelopment Act), Pub. L. 103-421; 32 CFR Part 176, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.; and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 28 U.S.C. § 1447, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1975a–1975d, 2000a– 2000h-6, and Whereas; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires CCSF, and the RDA, in coordination with the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to identify and address any disproportionately high and/or adverse human health, socioeconomic, or environmental impacts of their programs, policies, and actions on minority and/or low-income populations, and Whereas; The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the California law that allows the affected community to be informed and members of the public to voice their opinion about projects that may affect their environment. CEQA requires a review of the environmental impacts of projects. CEQA has a broad, strong right of public participation, which has a political component and the violation or deprivation of which has constitutional consequences to the affected community, and Whereas; In mandating separate project areas for the shipyard and the Hunters Point Community the RDA as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is being allowed to piecemeal the process which is analogous to the strongly forbidden “chopping up [of] a proposed project into bite-size pieces which, individually considered, might be found to have no significance on the environment.” (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 716, citing Orinda Assn. v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1145, 1171, 1172; see also Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d at 283-284; Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 309.) In the present case what we have is a chopping up of the CEQA duty to provide information that trivialize the nature and extent of the two project’s impacts. In addition, the piecemealing requires that the affected community and the RAB to respond, and allows the developer Lennar-BVHP to then reply, without any opportunity for reply by the affected community and the RAB, without requiring a comprehensive analysis, and without providing structure or finality to the process. And when the process gets near the end, strict time lines are imposed which create additional burdens on the RAB and other members of the public, further hindering if not completely preventing their full and meaningful participation in a process heavily weighed in favor of Lennar-BVHP with virtually unlimited resources whose only excuse for piecemealing the required information is to use it as a tactic to avoid or minimize opposition. Whereas; CEQA provides that a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment when the possible effects on the environment are individually limited but “cumulatively considerable.” (Pub. Resources Code, §21083(b); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, §15065.) “’Cumulatively considerable’ means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15065, emphasis added.) In addition to analyzing the direct impacts of a project, the CEQA Lead Agency must determine whether or not a project will result in a significant cumulative impact. Whereas; Recent statutory law has invigorated the utility of the California Environmental Quality Act as the procedural means for the CCSF RDA to ensure "the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies" (i.e., environmental justice).” In conjunction with the regulatory provisions of the federal Clean Air Act and Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code, CEQA provides an ideal mechanism for ensuring that environmental justice will be addressed in all activities and projects that may have a significant effect on the environment. Whereas; The California Environmental Quality Act requires that environmental documents (i.e., an environmental impact report [EIR] or a negative declaration or equivalent document) be prepared whenever a public agency proposes to undertake a discretionary activity that may have a significant effect on the environment. The Legislature has declared that all agencies that "regulate activities of private individuals, corporations, and public agencies which are found to affect the quality of the environment, shall regulate such activities so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage, while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian." Projects that are directly undertaken by public agencies are subject to the same level of accountability as private projects that require a permit or other governmental approval to proceed. Whereas; The recent enactment of Public Resources Code sections 71110 through 71115 and Government Code section 65040.12, in conjunction with the requirements of federal law, the SIP, and EPA regulations, require the RDA to infuse EJ into every aspect of decisionmaking. This panoply of statutory authority animates the general authority of the RDA to "do such acts as may be necessary for the proper execution of the powers and duties granted to, and imposed upon, the state board by this division [26 of the Health and Safety Code] and by any other provision of law." Further, the rules, regulations, and standards that the RDA adopts must be "consistent with the state goal of providing a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian" – and so, full circle back to CEQA. Therefore Be It Resolved, 1. The Bayview Hunters Point Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) hereby Adopts and Incorporates this day the above cited Protests and Objections of Lynne Brown and any other RAB member present at the December 2, 2003 RDA meeting, and 2. The RAB hereby authorizes this issuance to the US Navy, DoD, US and California EPA, and California Department of Toxic Substance Control, Notice that the RAB has determined the CCSF RDA to be in Noncompliance with the aforementioned statutes specifically with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 28 U.S.C. § 1447, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1975a–1975d, 2000a– 2000h-6, and the California Environmental Quality Act, with Notice in the Federal Register if available, and 3. The RAB will not sign-off on the transfer of the Hunters Point Shipyard to the City and County of San Francisco until it can Certify compliance with the Civil Rights Act, the Base Closure Act including but not limited to the aforementioned statutes. Vote Ayes Nays Abstentions ____ ____ ____
http://www.calfree.com
add your comments
Dismayed at Insensitivity to the Community Supervisors Action Required
by SF Resident Wednesday, Dec. 31, 2003 at 7:53 PM
The callous insensitivity by the developers, call for our Board of Supervisors to start an investigation of what is really going on at the Redevelopment Agency. The current administration has is known for not having any ethics. Their needs to be a return of that agency, (RDA) and their commissioners, to an ethical, morale standard representative of the people of San Francisco. They along with the current administration should be fully investigated and the money trail followed exposing their misdeeds. When evidence is found they should be charged and fully prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
The Board of Supervisors must adopt a new higher standard of ethics for the City and County with the City Attorney, corrupt commissions should not be allowed to exist, corrupt city department should have their budgets cut, and their heads brought before the board every chance they get. Corrupt and questionable developers should be encouraged to do business elsewhere, or be subject to ongoing investigations, prosecution and civil lawsuits by the city.
The enforcement of Environmental Justice and Environmental Racism Laws and reports should be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors, before it is enforced by lawsuits (civil and private) for them, giving the City a black eye. The Voters have said we want Ethical, Accountable Government Now! It is now in our Supervisors hands. You have a growing active San Franciscan base behind you.
add your comments
my expeience as an artist in San francisco
by an artist Wednesday, Dec. 31, 2003 at 9:28 PM
Having lived and worked in the Fillmore a fun vibrant community with other artist and musicians. Enjoying every day and the multi cultural people it was inspiring. They took that away, then I moved to a funky loft in the South of Market part of town, they took that away. I moved to Bayview –Hunters Point in a warehouse they took that away. Now several of my friends are in the shipyard they are worried about that being take away too despite hollow reassurances by the developer. Why are the developers so greedy?
We bring the spirit, then they want to capture the area without the spirit then they expect the art spirit to stay, the music, the art the love; however they kill whatever is there, the multi ethnic radiant mixture of people, and the spirit is loss. The new residents have to travel to where we are whether near or far to experience the spirit we have staying one step ahead of the developers, and the very greedy politicians. We support toxic free multi ethnic-cultural environments where there is a real spirit, so we can create our arts.
I am tired of moving, and staying one step of the greedy politicians, and developers without a spirit or soul. Just because we have spirits of love don’t think we are not going to fight, our fight is for the real spirit of San Francisco, room and love for all.
add your comments
Another example of environmental injustices in the Bayview
by David Erickson Friday, Jan. 02, 2004 at 7:03 PM
2 years and 2 months ago, SF Muni destroyed the Muwekma Ohlone Sanctuary on Islais Creek, during a drilling project under Islais Creek to install what they said were transmission lines for the Third Street Light Rail (which many of us locally call the "Third Street White Rail" ie gentrification and SF Redevlopment Agency,etc..)
This drilling caused the main sewer outfall pipe to collapse which was in the sanctuary, and required the excavation of nearly 40% of the park, which was also home to Pacific Chorus Frogs.
As a result of this excavation, the park lost $75,000 in federal grants for habitat restoration and environmental education.
Interestingly, the 3 transmission lines installed under the creek, were each approximetely 4 or 5 feet in diameter, and contain dozens of smaller cables labeled 120 KV, and 240 KV, are certainly not the kind of power required for a simple light electric rail, and we have heard that main purpose of these lines is for a new electric grid associated with PG&E and Mirant.
To date, not only is the park not restored, but the sewer pipe continues to sink, and the transmission lines work is incomplete. Despite having hired an environmental lawyer to seek costs for restoration of this habitat, SF Muni, nor PUC, no DPW, nor the drilling contractors ( Proven and Utility Boring) nor the Port of San Francisco has provided one dollar nor one hour of work towards restoring this precious habitat on Islais Creek.
Just another example of environmental neglect by our local buearcrocies.
Here are some links to older articles on this travesty:
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2001/11/110258.php
http://www.monkeyview.net/id/56/sewercollapse/index.vhtml
http://userhttp://www.sfsu.edu/%7Ej667/refuge.html
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object.cgi?object=/chronicle/pictures/2003/07/28/ba_islais.jpg&paper=chronicle&file=MN283123.DTL&directory=/c/a/2003/07/28&type=news
http://www.islaiscreek.org/sewerpipecollapseatislais.html
David Erickson
add your comments
Correction on link " Another Example of environmental injustices the Bayview...."
by David Erickson Friday, Jan. 02, 2004 at 8:02 PM
Please note that this link:
http://userhttp://www.sfsu.edu/%7Ej667/refuge.html
has been replaced with this link:
http://online.sfsu.edu/~j667/refuge.html
david
add your comments
Intentional Prejudice
by Spcial Scientist Saturday, Jan. 03, 2004 at 4:43 AM
San Francisco has taken a prejudicial stance to the community of Hunters Point, and its people. Let’s take the information that we currently know it has over 1000 toxic locations, with one location on the Federal Superfund list, one location on the State Superfund list.
Garbage Dumping is a known problem where people from other communities have dropped their garbage in that community.
Health Care with the highest hospitalization rates of anywhere in the city, and some of the highest in the state, the only health center is a Monday to Friday operation nine to five.
Energy the community is paying more than their share for energy, toxic living through pollution, high health care cost and then add in the regular cost of energy.
Police Enforcement; where gangs are not targeted, but where more of the residents and their children are targets.
No Major Retail Stores or Supermarkets, existent in that community.
Banks Redlined the community despite a CRA and a very high home ownership and tax base by the residents.
Jobs; a very high unemployment rate 16% plus, despite multiple local contracts.
Schools many children bussed out of the community.
Resource Center; a true lack of them for that community.
Sewage Treatment; a smell where the whole community, has experienced at one time or another
Public Housing many residential units boarded up for what ever reason.
Is this Prejudice?
add your comments
Response to "Intentional Prejudice"
by David Erickson Saturday, Jan. 03, 2004 at 8:39 PM
Thank you Social Scientist Saturday January 03, 2004 at 04:56 AM
Thank You for summarizing and publishing the obvious statistics that we all know, and yet not published by local mainstream media nor recognized by local government.
Please continue your good work
david
http://www.islaiscreek.org
add your comments
esponse to "Intentional Prejudice"
by david erickson Sunday, Jan. 04, 2004 at 12:05 PM
Thank You for summarizing and publishing the obvious statistics that we all know, and yet not published by local mainstream media nor recognized by local government.
Please continue your good work
david
add your comments
THE MAYOR'S LEGACY: WILLIE BROWN
by Lance Williams, Chronicle Staff Writer Sunday, Jan. 04, 2004 at 12:18 PM
What did it do to the community?
To his critics, it was a scene that characterized Willie Brown's City Hall just as surely as the mayor's sartorial splendor or his vaunted political skill: armed FBI agents descending on a city office, looking for municipal corruption.
That scene played out in public on a Friday afternoon in July 1999, when the FBI raided the city agency that monitors San Francisco's minority- contracting program, occupying the office for three days while agents hauled away truckloads of suspected evidence.
Investigators weren't always so public in their sleuthing. But for five years -- starting in 1998, and continuing as late as last month -- FBI agents conducted a wide-ranging corruption probe at City Hall, according to documents and interviews. From the start, witnesses who were interviewed said, agents seemed focused on the conduct of the mayor and some of his closest political allies.
Few prosecutions resulted, and Brown was never accused of wrongdoing. He charged that the investigations were politically motivated.
Over the years, agents served subpoenas on more than a dozen city departments, including the mayor's office at City Hall. At one point, court records reflected that a federal grand jury had convened and was scrutinizing more than $1 billion worth of city contracts for suspected improprieties.
In case after case, witnesses said the agents seemed intent on determining whether federal laws were being violated in the context of what Brown critics called the practice of "juice" politics at City Hall. It was a dynamic in which lobbyists, campaign donors and political players who had influence with the mayor seemed to hold the inside track on lucrative land deals, contracts and favorable regulatory decisions.
Witnesses interviewed by The Chronicle said a revolving team of more than two dozen agents worked the long-running probe.
Little to show
Despite the extraordinary scrutiny, authorities had little to show for their efforts. In five years, U.S. grand juries handed up only two corruption- related indictments. Only one city official -- a mid-level administrator accused in a bribery scandal at the Housing Authority - went to prison.
To Brown partisans, the lack of results verified what they had claimed all along: Brown ran a clean government and based decisions on merit. The unusually public way in which the FBI probe was conducted -- especially the raids and subpoenas during Brown's 1999 re-election campaign -- smacked of political interference, they said.
As Charlie Walker, a longtime Brown pal and self-described FBI target, once told a reporter: "If the FBI wanted to do something to me bad enough, rather than just make Willie Brown look bad, they would have stopped me on the street and taken me in."
But advocates of government reform contend that the FBI had every reason to scrutinize the way public business was conducted under Brown.
"The legacy of Willie Brown has been one of corruption and incompetence in government, and the probes were a reflection of that," said Fred Ridel, coordinator of the good-government group San Francisco Common Cause. He emphasized that he made his comments as a private citizen.
"Just because you don't find criminal activity you can prosecute doesn't mean everything is squeaky clean," Ridel continued. "There has been a lot of corruption, and some of it comes to the attention of law enforcement. People know about it."
Brown spokesman P.J. Johnston called the criticism irresponsible.
"The mayor's critics and opponents have lobbed so many accusations against him over the years, and none of them has been proven," he said. "That doesn't suggest guilt. If anything, it suggests how irresponsible and consistently bogus these accusations are."
Johnston also accused Brown's opponents of seeking to exploit what he styled "anxiety about African Americans in positions of power'' by making unfounded charges.
"That anxiety is often exploited by lobbing charges of corruption and cronyism that eventually fall short," he said.
The dealmaker
At issue in the investigations was the way Brown adapted his deal-making style of insider politics to governing San Francisco. The style was pure Sacramento, honed during 15 years when Brown, as speaker of the Assembly, established his reputation as a consummate political player. It had attracted FBI attention before.
Almost from the day he became speaker in 1980, Brown became a focus of an overlapping series of FBI corruption investigations, according to court records and interviews.
In the most famous, the FBI ran a sting operation involving a fake shrimp- fishing company whose executives -- actually undercover agents -- promised to pay lawmakers to ram special-interest bills through the Legislature.
The sting and cases related to it produced a dozen indictments. But Brown was never charged with wrongdoing.
In 1998, two years after he became mayor, the FBI was looking at Brown again, records show.
At first, agents probed how Brown appointees on the Airport Commission had come to award a contract to build a $116 million "people mover" transit system at SFO. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of America, the low bidder, lost out to a competitor called Adtranz after the latter gave a $10 million subcontract to business consultant James Jefferson, a fund-raiser and friend of the mayor.
That probe, in part, focused on allegations that Zula Jones, a city employee and a friend of Jefferson, had helped steer the contract to Adtranz, records show. Jones was an official at the Human Rights Commission, the contract-compliance agency that later became the target of the FBI raid. Jones, Jefferson and Adtranz said they had done nothing wrong and no charges were ever filed.
Minority contracting
After that, court records show, the FBI began examining a long list of city contracts, permits and development deals. Many involved suspected abuse of the minority contracting program, set up to ensure an equitable share of city contracts go to businesses owned by disadvantaged minorities and women.
The agents took a close look at Walker, a trucking contractor who was Brown's former law client and his longtime friend and political backer. In 1984, Walker had been sent to prison for bilking the city's minority contracting program.
But in the years after Brown was elected mayor, city records show, Walker obtained a share of more than $800,000 worth of city trucking subcontracts at the airport. Most came via the same minority contracting program he had been convicted of abusing.
Later, the FBI sought information on Ron Tutor, head of the giant Tutor- Saliba Corp. construction company, lead contractor on the $2.8 billion airport expansion project undertaken during Brown's term. Tutor was a Brown political donor, and he had been implicated but not charged in the 1984 case, court records show.
Neither Walker nor Tutor was charged in the airport contracts probe. Tutor said the FBI had no reason to investigate him. The FBI probe "seems to have a life of its own," Tutor said at one point. "It would be humorous if it wasn't so sad."
The probe later turned to other city deals, including a series of multimillion-dollar management contracts obtained by Jacqueline Besser, wife of a former law associate of Brown, Stephen Besser. Again, no charges were ever brought. She declined comment for this story.
Agents also spent months probing the city's decision to approve the expansion of the giant Sutro Tower. Neighborhood groups had complained that Brown ordered the project approved at the behest of lobbyists for the broadcasting consortium that owns it.
In 2000, three weeks after Brown's second inaugural, the FBI served his office with a grand jury subpoena for records of meetings between Brown and Jefferson, Walker, the Bessers and others involved in city contracting.
Only 2 indictments
In the end, federal grand juries handed up only two corruption indictments.
In one, Housing Authority administrator Patricia Williams was accused of taking bribes in exchange for federal rent subsidies meant for poor people.
Williams, a career city employee and wife of a Baptist minister, was convicted after testimony by her former aide, Yolanda Jones, daughter of Charlie Walker and self-described goddaughter of Brown. Jones, who had pleaded guilty, testified she did no work for her city salary, but spent her days collecting bribe money that she split with Williams.
Williams protested her innocence, but she was convicted, and in 2001 she was sentenced to five years in federal prison -- the lone city official imprisoned during Brown's term.
"She was a scapegoat," says her husband, the Rev. Michael Williams. "I see Willie on occasion, and he doesn't look me in the eye."
In the other case, three officials of the Scott Co., a white-owned construction firm in San Leandro, were accused of using a phony minority "front company" to win $64 million in airport construction contracts intended for minority concerns.
Indicted with the executives was Hunters Point plumber, Al Norman, a Brown backer and paroled murderer who allegedly served as the Scott Co.'s front man. Also indicted was Zula Jones, the Human Rights Commission official involved in the airport people-mover contract that began the broader FBI investigation.
But the Scott case unraveled when a federal judge ruled that evidence seized in the FBI's high-profile raid on the commission office couldn't be used in court. The agents should have obtained a search warrant before entering Jones' office, the judge ruled.
In 2001, charges against Jones, Norman and two of the Scott Co. executives were dropped. The company itself paid $2 million in fines and restitution, and one company executive, Robert Nurisso, was sentenced to house arrest.
No other cases brought
Although agents continued to contact witnesses, no other cases were ever brought. Last month, witnesses said, agents were asking about alleged misconduct involving the issuance of permits by the Department of Building Inspection.
Witnesses said that from the start, the probe seemed beset with difficulties. Although the bureau devoted significant resources to the probe - - as many as two dozen agents at a time, two witnesses estimated -- San Francisco politics and government contracting issues are complex, and often, by the time agents seemed up to speed, they would be promoted or transferred, and a new agent would come in and start from scratch, witnesses said.
One official said that at long intervals, he was interviewed by three different FBI agents. Each one asked virtually identical questions about the same issues and cast of characters, and each one explained that the previous agent had been reassigned.
"We were always starting at square one,'' the official said.
E-mail Lance Williams at lwilliams [at] sfchronicle.com
What were the effects on BVHP?
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/04/MNG8F3L5CM41.DTL
add your comments
THE MAYOR'S LEGACY: WILLIE BROWN (Subset)
by Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Staff Writer Sunday, Jan. 04, 2004 at 12:39 PM
How Did This Impact BVHP?
"You've got to take affirmative steps
For more information:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/12/166661...
How To Steal From A Low-Income Community Of Color 101
Hunters Point Development
FBI probe focuses on bayfront property proposals
2 projects involved mayor's pal Charlie Walker
By Chuck Finnie and Lance Williams
OF THE EXAMINER STAFF, Aug 11, 1999
More recently, according to authoritative information obtained by The Examiner, the FBI demanded that a city agency turn over records related to Lennar Homes, a subsidiary of Lennar Corp. of Florida, which won Redevelopment Commission approval in March to build housing on the 500-acre Hunters Point Naval Shipyard.
The Port industrial park proposal and the shipyard redevelopment project both involved controversial city trucker Charlie Walker, a friend, political supporter and former law client of Mayor Brown. Walker is a focus of the FBI city contracting probe.
Source: http://www.examiner.com/990811/0811probe.html
When a Florida development firm, Lennar Corp., began assembling a team last year for a bid on the rights to another piece of the southeast Bayfront, the 500-acre Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, it also turned to Walker. As its local jobs broker — a firm that would be charged with ensuring people from the Bayview were hired to work on the project — Lennar retained the Bayview Hunters Point Builders Exchange, another of Walker's companies.
Joe Petrillo, a lawyer for Lennar, said the developer wanted to get better connected to the people in the neighborhood.
Walker also brought connections — not only to Brown, but also to the then-Redevelopment Commission President Lynette Sweet, treasurer of Walker's nonprofit.
On March 30, when the commission selected a developer for the shipyard, Sweet voted to give the contract to Lennar, joining three other commissioners on a 4-3 vote to reject a consultant's recommendation that the project go to another firm.
Source: http://www.examiner.com/990627/0627walker.html
Lennar steals Hunters Point deal
San Francisco's redevelopment agency gave development rights for Hunters Point Naval Shipyard to a team led by Lennar Corp. -- abandoning the recommendation of an outside consultant. The Lennar team, which is also redeveloping Mare Island in Vallejo, won a 7-0 vote and beat out Catellus Corp. and the consultant's pick, Forest City Enterprises. The agency said Lennar had done a better job mustering community support and was the best off financially
Source: http://www.amcity.com/sanfrancisco/stories/1999/03/29/daily15.html
Hunters Point Development
FBI probe focuses on bayfront property proposals
2 projects involved mayor's pal Charlie Walker
By Chuck Finnie and Lance Williams
OF THE EXAMINER STAFF, Aug 11, 1999
More recently, according to authoritative information obtained by The Examiner, the FBI demanded that a city agency turn over records related to Lennar Homes, a subsidiary of Lennar Corp. of Florida, which won Redevelopment Commission approval in March to build housing on the 500-acre Hunters Point Naval Shipyard.
The Port industrial park proposal and the shipyard redevelopment project both involved controversial city trucker Charlie Walker, a friend, political supporter and former law client of Mayor Brown. Walker is a focus of the FBI city contracting probe.
Source: http://www.examiner.com/990811/0811probe.html
When a Florida development firm, Lennar Corp., began assembling a team last year for a bid on the rights to another piece of the southeast Bayfront, the 500-acre Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, it also turned to Walker. As its local jobs broker — a firm that would be charged with ensuring people from the Bayview were hired to work on the project — Lennar retained the Bayview Hunters Point Builders Exchange, another of Walker's companies.
Joe Petrillo, a lawyer for Lennar, said the developer wanted to get better connected to the people in the neighborhood.
Walker also brought connections — not only to Brown, but also to the then-Redevelopment Commission President Lynette Sweet, treasurer of Walker's nonprofit.
On March 30, when the commission selected a developer for the shipyard, Sweet voted to give the contract to Lennar, joining three other commissioners on a 4-3 vote to reject a consultant's recommendation that the project go to another firm.
Source: http://www.examiner.com/990627/0627walker.html
Lennar steals Hunters Point deal
San Francisco's redevelopment agency gave development rights for Hunters Point Naval Shipyard to a team led by Lennar Corp. -- abandoning the recommendation of an outside consultant. The Lennar team, which is also redeveloping Mare Island in Vallejo, won a 7-0 vote and beat out Catellus Corp. and the consultant's pick, Forest City Enterprises. The agency said Lennar had done a better job mustering community support and was the best off financially
Source: http://www.amcity.com/sanfrancisco/stories/1999/03/29/daily15.html
For more information:
http://sftimes.editthispage.com/stories/st...
(1) Why are so-called "progressives" trying to give Gavin Newsom another seat on the Board of Supervisors?
The City's Charter clearly states that the Mayor gets to appoint a Supervisor who is recalled. Maybe read the law next time before you waste everyone's time.
(2) Why won't these so-called "progressives" who yell about secret deals disclose where the money is coming from for the recall effort?
Mel Washington, a member of Newsom's transition team and a developer's best friend whose chief complaint against Sup. Maxwell is she fought against Home Depot locating in Visitacion Valley, is knee-deep in the recall. Where is his money coming from? Why are you taking it? Smells like downtown to me - and you all are playing the fool.
The City's Charter clearly states that the Mayor gets to appoint a Supervisor who is recalled. Maybe read the law next time before you waste everyone's time.
(2) Why won't these so-called "progressives" who yell about secret deals disclose where the money is coming from for the recall effort?
Mel Washington, a member of Newsom's transition team and a developer's best friend whose chief complaint against Sup. Maxwell is she fought against Home Depot locating in Visitacion Valley, is knee-deep in the recall. Where is his money coming from? Why are you taking it? Smells like downtown to me - and you all are playing the fool.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$120.00 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