San Francisco denies Black voting rights a Long History

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.


http://www.sfbayview.com
add your comments
More On The Recall
by Da Community Tuesday, Aug. 10, 2004 at 7:27 AM
Enforce Federal State Local Voter Laws Allow the One Person Voter Rule to be Respected Respect District Voter Rights

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


Clean up the S.F. Elections Department
add your comments
You bet it is
by sfres Tuesday, Aug. 10, 2004 at 1:23 PM

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!

add your comments
Election Fraud websites
by San Francisco Voter Tuesday, Aug. 10, 2004 at 9:09 PM

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.


http://www.brasscheck.com/stadium
add your comments
Supervisor may face recall election -- no disclosure by foes (Chronicle Spin)
by Suzanne Herel, Chronicle Staff Writer Wednesday, Aug. 11, 2004 at 9:48 AM
sherel [at] sfchronicle.com. Get the Story Straight San Francisco Chronicle

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.



http://www.sfchronicle.com
add your comments
Rebuttal to the Chronicle Spin
by Da Community Wednesday, Aug. 11, 2004 at 9:58 AM
Understand the Issues Racism lives Understand why major media has to spin the story

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?


Gag the S.F Voters
add your comments
Grant Money on Shelly controll of the Low Income and People of Color
by Da Community Wednesday, Aug. 11, 2004 at 11:21 AM
Did You Notice? What Departments fall under Shelly? Is this how SAN Francisco Operates?

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?

See the Pattern?
add your comments
Letter to the Editor (Chronicle)
by Mary Bull/Greenwood Earth Allaince Wednesday, Aug. 11, 2004 at 7:51 PM
chalicenew [at] earthlink.net 415-731-7924

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

add your comments
A questionable $50,000 A check for the amount of a down payment for a house in the Sunset
by Todd Wallack, Vanessa Hua, Christian Berthels Thursday, Aug. 12, 2004 at 7:21 AM
twallack [at] sfchronicle.com, cberthelsen [at] sfchronicle.com and vahua [at] sfchronicle.com The Chronicle

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



sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/08/12/MNGHB86LE01.DTL
add your comments
How does a Developer tie into Voting Rights?
by Research Bank Thursday, Aug. 12, 2004 at 7:41 AM
Sam Singer, Susan Horsfall Lennar's People follow the trail S,F City & County and State

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.sfbayview.com/042104/conveyance042104.shtml
add your comments
Lets stop Environmental Injustice/Racism in Hunters Point
by Maurice Campbell & Barbara George Thursday, Aug. 12, 2004 at 9:21 PM
mecsoft [at] pacbell.net Follow The MoneyTrail See Where It Goes Read the ties to the Elections Department

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 fa