Democratic SF City Attorney Herrera Invalidates Bayview Home-saving Ballot Measure

The Democrat SF City Attorney Dennis Herrera, like the Democratic, election-frauding mayor of San Francisco, has defended the landlords and real estate interests by finding some excuse to invalidate the attempt to save the homes of the black community of Bayview with a ballot referendum.

The question is: When is Bayview going to stop voting for the Democrats and start voting for Peace & Freedom Party and Green Party candidates who do support this referendum? How much election fraud, murder (see http://www.brasscheck.com/stadium), poor people removal commonly known as redevelopment, wars, war profiteering, death penalty, rotten schools, no national healthcare system, cutting taxes on the rich, grossly inadequate affordable, decent housing for all and more will it take to finally stop voting for the Democrats? The workers of the world want to know when the American workingclass will finally vote for their class interests, namely the socialist Peace & Freedom Party or on occasion, the Green Party?

From: "Breaking News: San Francisco City Attorney Invalidates Bayview Redevelopment Referendum" by Randy Shaw
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=3697#more

The City Attorney’s Office has issued a legal ruling this morning invalidating the recently-qualified referendum on Bayview Redevelopment.

The ruling is based on the petition’s failure to include all of the documents incorporated by reference into the Ordinance creating the Redevelopment Area. These missing documents would have added several pages to the referendum petitions, which did include the text of the Ordinance itself. In a case cited by the City Attorney, a petition failed to include an addendum that was several hundreds pages long. Although attaching a phone-book size document to the petition would have made signature gathering impossible, the Court of Appeal in Nelson v. Carlson 17 Cal.App. 4th 732 (1993) rejected the petitions for not including the giant document.

The City Attorney’s ruling, after requested to investigate the issue by Mayor Newsom and Supervisors Peskin and Maxwell, will almost certainly be challenged in the courts. But it does explain the lack of mayoral and political reaction to the referendum’s qualifying, as political insiders may have been tipped off as to the measure’s legal infirmities.

The City Attorney’s action comes on the heels of land use initiatives and referendums being recently removed from the ballot in Albany and Oakland on highly questionable grounds. If the Nelson case is controlling here, it essentially means that the referendum is not a viable option for challenging the creation of Redevelopment Areas. All Agency proponents must do is incorporate enough documents “by reference” so as to effectively prevent signature gathering.

The irony of the City Attorney's ruling is that it further supports those who claim the Redevelopment process is anti-democratic. If a Redevelopment Agency takeover of Bayview-Hunters Point is such a good thing, why not let the voters affirm this? Denying a popular vote creates suspicion---justified or not---that Agency proponents could only fulfill their agenda by thwarting the popular will.