SF Housing Crisis: Prop M Off Ballot, Special Election Required

On 9/2/04, a judge tossed Prop M, which was to save 400 rent-controlled affordable apartments at 8th and Market (Trinity Plaza) from demolition by landlord Angelo Sangiacomo and replacement by condominiums, was tossed from the 11/04 ballot on a technicality related to the petition used to gather the impressive 20,000 signatures. We now must circulate a petition for a special election in March 2005, and push our supporters to the poll.

To stay current on this issue and volunteer for this effort, which will require every single concerned person's effort, whether or not you live or vote in San Francisco, please check the website of the San Francisco Tenants Union at
http://www.sftu.org
and to read a good description of the issue, please see the campaign for Prop M's website at:
http://www.saverentcontrol.org/

This is certainly a case of the Democratic Party's betrayal of the workingclass in San Francisco, who constitute most of the 2/3 of the residents who are tenants, and most of us tenants need rent control to have a place to live. We do not have vacancy control, a state issue, so the landlords can raise the rent sky high if we move out, but we do have rent control so long as we stay in our apartment for at least one year. All the so-called progressive Democrats in the state legislature have yet to campaign for a state law for vacancy control.

Prop. M was a Board of Supervisors proposd ordinance which was vetoed by that good Democrat and darling of the anti-rent control landlord and real estate interests, mayor Gavin Newsom, and we did not have 8 votes to override the veto because one good Democrat, Bevan Dufty, changed his vote to a No vote.

We did, however, have at least 4 supervisors (5 in fact) who would agree to put Prop M on the ballot, namely Chris Daly, Tom Ammiano, Matt Gonzalez, Jake McGoldrick and Aaron Peskin.

For some strange reason, the easies and safest path, namely having 4 supervisors sign to put it on the ballot, was rejected in favor of the arduous and more costly method of circulating petitions, under the guise of looking to demonstrate support, which is the whole purpose of campaigning and voting on a measure once it is on the ballot!

The petition that was used apparently did not have a line on it that is required for this year's petitions, stating that the signature of the signer is not to be used for anything other than the petition. If we had a strong labor movement, the judge would have learned that housing is a right and necessity, not a privilege, and the common good must prevail over a technicality which would most likely not have changed the number of signatures provided, far in excess of what was needed. As it is now, we must assume that all judges are pro-landlord and avoid them when possible.

Anyone who has worked on elections knows that petitions are a problem because of all the little details that are required. Apparently, Chris Daly, the supporter of the petition path, is ignorant of this fact, and he is certainly too arrogant to listen to people who do know this fact.

Any lawyer and anyone connected with the legal community also knows to avoid petitions when possible. Chris Daly is not a lawyer, although he comes from the upper middle class. He has 2 years of college and some housing-related poverty work experience. At age 28, when he was first elected in 2000, that sounds good, but is clearly not enough. When he first considered running, he was not registered in any party, but soon registered Democrat, and it has been downhill from there.

TO ALL SUPERVISORS AND CANDIDATES FOR SUPERVISOR-Adhere to the KISS Principle:
The reason we have district elections of supervisors is so that we have a pro-tenant Board that can be measures on the ballot without our having to go to the time and expense of circulating petitions! If at all possible, if you as a supervisor cannot pass a measure at the Board of Supervisors, then get 4 supervisors' signatures and put it on the ballot. This is called the KISS principle: KEEP IT SIMPLE!

What we face now is disaster that can only be prevented with the collective effort of everyone reading this article. We have to gather 15,000 signatures to hold a special election within 120 days of verification by the Election Department of those signatures. That means a March 2005 election, a low voter turnout election, unless we literally push every single tenant voter to the polls. The November presidential election is always the highest voter turnout, and this year, with the presidential election at a fever pitch already, we could be sure of a high voter turnout, which means the workingclass voters go to the polls in high numbers. In such an election, the tenant voters are 50% of the voters, and we always have another 10% who are property owner supporters of tenants. Sometimes we get more property owner supporters as most property owners are not landlords. The Trinity Plaza issue has widespread support for the tenants.

The Democratic Party claims to support Prop M because it knows it cannot exist in the workingclass communities if it does not give lip-service to rent control. It had better put its money where its mouth is and spend lots and lots of money to pass Prop M in March.

What is at stake is not just this large number of rent-controlled affordable housing units, but the existence of all affordable housing in San Francisco, upon whom not only the workingclass, but in particular, the radical community, depend. If we lose Trinity Plaza to condominiums, other landlords will certainly do the same thing, and we will all be homeless.

So, all of you globetrotters who trouped off to New York, Boston and the rest of the planet, if you left your home in San Francisco, please help us to keep our home and yours by saving Prop. M. Join the campaign now!