Calls needed today to stop massive land grab of Bayview/HP

(Please circulate this message widely.)

Dear friends around the country and the world:

Tomorrow, Tuesday, May 23, shortly after 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time, a final vote will be taken on a massive land grab, a plan by the City to take control of nearly all of San Francisco's Black heartland, Bayview Hunters Point.

PLEASE CALL THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (contact info below). ASK THEM TO REJECT OR POSTPONE THE BAYVIEW HUNTERS POINT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. TELL THEM THE WORLD IS WATCHING.

This week's editorial in the San Francisco Bay Guardian, a much bigger paper than the Bay View, does an EXCELLENT job of explaining the issues and why the plan should not be approved tomorrow. Following the Guardian editorial is Ebony Colbert's latest masterpiece from the Bay View. Contact info for the Supervisors is at the end.

Please help us save our neighborhood and prevent the ethnic cleansing of over 30,000 Black and Brown residents who have put down roots and woven tight community bonds for many generations! THANK YOU!!!

Back to Story
http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=596

Hunters Point plan: Wait for an audit
EDITORIAL The redevelopment plan for Hunters Point was heading for almost certain approval at press time, in part for a pretty dumb reason: It exists.

If you ask supporters of the plan, like Redevelopment Agency director Marcia Rosen, about the harsh criticism in some parts of the African American community, she'll confront you with a very good question: What's the alternative?

The area is economically depressed, the city and state don't have much money to pour into it, and redevelopment at least offers the option of federal money and tax-increment bonds that could generate thousands of jobs, create thousands of units of affordable housing, help new businesses get going (and help old ones prosper), and generally improve the lives of a lot of struggling people.

At least, Rosen says, her agency has a tangible proposal. Even if it's not perfect — and no economic development plan ever is — it's something.

And that's true, but we still have this lingering problem: The San Francisco Redevelopment Agency has never been anything but a disaster for the African American community. Since the 1950s the agency has used its extensive authority to drive black residents out of town, destroy black-owned businesses, eliminate existing affordable housing, and destroy the hearts of black neighborhoods.

And redevelopment has its own expenses — according to the Board of Supervisors' budget analyst, $100 million of the money the agency raises in tax-increment financing will go to overhead and administrative expenses.

Redevelopment is a powerful tool, which is why some progressives still like it. Despite the abuses of the past, they say, it's possible to use that tool properly. A redevelopment agency can issue bonds backed not by the city but by the projected increase in tax revenue that will come from the economic revitalization of an area. Those bonds don't require voter approval, provide immediate cash for things like permanently affordable housing, and have no impact on the city's credit rating.

In the past, almost nobody has paid much attention to where the bond money actually goes and how much of the tax-<\h>increment financing winds up improving the lives of the people in the project area. That's a serious problem.

Sup. Ross Mirkarimi, who represents the Western Addition — a neighborhood that still suffers from the ugly scars of redevelopment — argues that before the city launches a new redevelopment project, there ought to be a complete audit of where San Francisco redevelopment money has gone in the past. How much of the tax-<\h>increment money has subsidized the profits of private developers? How much has gone to market-<\h>rate housing? How much has gone to high agency salaries and expenses?

Equally important, how many people of color have been forced from their homes by redevelopment — and how many have ever been able to return? How many minority-<\h>owned businesses have been destroyed, and how many created? How many jobs in redevelopment project areas have actually gone to residents of those areas?

How did the failures of the past happen — and how can we keep them from happening this time around?
Mirkarimi's proposal makes sense. This has been a long-term process: The city has been discussing Hunters Point redevelopment for some 10 years now. As long as there's significant opposition in the community — and as long as those questions are unanswered — it seems a mistake to rush forward.
Posted: 2006-05-16 16:59:50

It ain’t over ‘til it’s over

http://www.sfbayview.com/051706/itaintover051706.shtml
by Ebony Colbert

Tuesday, May 16, at City Hall, opponents and supporters of the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan packed the Board of Supervisors Chambers to comment on the five amendments put forth by Supervisor Sophie Maxwell and to hear the supervisors vote on whether it will pass or fail. “The psychic hotline tells me the votes are here,” said Supervisor Tom Ammiano, and he was right.

After nearly two hours of public comment – including lively testimony by engineer Ulysses J. Montgomery who said, “If this plan is so darn good, as city officials’ claim, then let’s approve an amendment to the plan to extend it to all of San Francisco” – Supervisors Mirkarimi, Ammiano and Sandoval voted against the plan.

Supervisors Alioto-Pier, Maxwell, Peskin, Dufty, Ma and Elsbernd voted for it. Supervisor Chris Daly, who was ill and was not present, and Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, who was also absent, may have been our fourth and fifth “no” votes, but either way, the majority voted in favor of the plan.

Knowing the history of Bayview’s three allies, we were not surprised at their votes. Just last week at the May 9 hearing, Gerardo Sandoval took time out to express his condolences to the family of 19-year-old Karl Bartolome, who was murdered in the Excelsior District.

Tom Ammiano, who while running for mayor had enough love for the community to open a Bayview office, was verbally attacked by our District 10 supervisor, who said that “long-time supervisors” who “claim” to be so concerned about Bayview Hunters Point should’ve done something before now, held his ground superbly in his opposition.

Then there’s Ross Mirkarimi, who took time to speak to grieving mothers at Saint Paul Tabernacle Church here in Bayview this Mothers Day. Sophie Maxwell was not in attendance.

The “ayes” had it 6-3. But it ain’t over yet.

Many people are surprised at the fast-growing opposition to the Redevelopment Agency’s plan. The main concern of both residents and supervisors has always been the threat of eminent domain, a tool that can be used to steal property from Bayview business and home owners, especially along the Third Street corridor, which is still mostly Black owned. The second concern is the Redevelopment Agency’s record of unfinished business and broken promises, especially the promise of jobs and affordable housing that has been the force pushing some residents to support the plan.

Redevelopment has yet to prove that they have reinvested any of the tax increment from present Project Areas back into the community. They have also been unable to prove that they are capable of creating jobs for residents in those areas or that they have significantly lowered the unemployment rate.

What they have proven is that they are capable of completely re-peopling a community of color. Witness Butchertown in Hunters Point, which they renamed India Basin, and the Fillmore, which they renamed Western Addition.

But those reasons are just the tip of the iceberg. Redevelopment’s nearly 40 years of trying to illegally acquire land from poor property owners of color in Bayview Hunters Point, Japantown and the Fillmore, which Supervisor Mirkarimi will remind you is “still going on,” gives us plenty of reasons to oppose it. And if not oppose it, ask for a postponement until they can prove that they are qualified to provide the benefits they are promising.

When you hear your own supervisor, Sophie Maxwell, announce to her colleagues, “I don’t trust Redevelopment any more than you do,” you have to ask yourself what her agenda or reasons are for supporting a quasi-governmental agency that has such a tragic record of wreaking havoc in Black communities. You should also ask yourself why our community is so coveted, when Chinatown, the Tenderloin and South of Market are also obviously just as, if not more, “blighted”?

Our community is still strongly united. No one questions what we need: jobs, housing, education, resources. We’ve needed them for a long time, and nothing has changed in quite awhile, except for the worse, since Maxwell has run our district. Will the introduction of the Redevelopment Plan satisfy these needs? I doubt it. The introduction of Maxwell into office sure hasn’t.

Luckily, the supervisors have one more chance to decide what’s really best for Bayview Hunters Point. That’s right! Tuesday’s vote was not the final word.

According to Clerk of the Board Gloria Young, because the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan is classified as an ordinance, there have to be two readings of the item, and votes must be taken at two different meetings. If, on the second reading, the majority vote to pass it, it becomes active 31 days after it is signed by the mayor. However, if the vote changes and we have more supervisors against the plan than for it, it dies.

There will be no public comment on the Redevelopment Plan at the meeting next Tuesday, May 23, but that doesn’t mean you’ve missed your chance to voice your concerns. Contact the offices of those supervisors who support this plan and urge them to rethink their decision. All we need is three more votes – maybe only one more:

* Michela Alioto-Pier, District 2, at (415) 554-7752 or Michela.Alioto-Pier [at] sfgov.org.

* Bevan Dufty, District 8, at (415) 554-6968, Bevan.Dufty [at] sfgov.org.

* Sean Elsbernd, District 7, at (415) 554-6516, Sean.Elsbernd [at] sfgov.org.

* Fiona Ma, District 4, at (415) 554-7460 or Fiona.Ma [at] sfgov.org.

* Aaron Peskin, Board President, District 3, at (415) 554-7450 or Aaron.Peskin [at] sfgov.org.

* Sophie Maxwell, District 10, at (415) 554-7670 or Sophie.Maxwell [at] sfgov.org.
Also, contact Chris Daly, District 6, at (415) 554-7970 or Chris.Daly [at] sfgov.org and Jake McGoldrick, District 1, at (415) 554-7410 or Jake.McGoldrick [at] sfgov.org and ask them not to miss their chance to vote on the right side. The future of our community depends on it.

Email Ebony at ebonywrites [at] sfbayview.com.