Will the PAC and Redevelopment move us out?

Time for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to stop the headaches and anxiety of the Bay View Hunters Point community over the decisions and plans of the Redevelopment Agency and its illegal Project Area Committee, or PAC.

Time to put Redevelopment under the control of our elected Board of Supervisors.

Right now the PAC, along with the Redevelopment Agency, wants to modify the Hunters Point Project Area to add an additional 1,600 acres to its current size of 137 acres, for a sum total of 1,737 acres. This is most of Bay View Hunters Point.

The definition of a project area is a blighted area that can be bulldozed and redeveloped. Redevelopment has the power of eminent domain over a project area. And if we are not careful – if we do not stop Redevelopment from declaring Bay View Hunters Point a project area - it could be imminent domain.

So if Redevelopment has its way and you live in that community, be prepared to be moved if the agency wants you out. Remember the Fillmore, where many people had only a month to leave their homes.

Look at the history of outrageous shenanigans by the PAC and the Redevelopment Agency. The Redevelopment Agency has been under investigation by the FBI for violations of the law. The City Ethics Commission is also investigating Redevelopment - for ethics violations. (See “Ethics panel eyes redevelopment role in Hunters Point” in the San Francisco Chronicle March 17, 2003.)

In addition, there is an ongoing legal action in regards to the Dec. 2 meeting of the Redevelopment Commission at City Hall, where the community was intentionally kept out and there were numerous violations of the Open Meetings Law and the Brown Act, as covered in the SF Bay View articles, “Redevelopment planning land grab of Shipyard and all Hunters Point,” published Nov. 26, 2003, and “Community barred from Redevelopment Commission meeting,” published Dec. 10.

Now we have confirmation that the Bay View Hunters Point PAC, which is supposed to represent the community as an arm of Redevelopment, has violated the Redevelopment Agency rules on elections. In a recent PAC meeting, Redevelopment’s own attorneys posted the following notice: “The PAC Election of February 16th 2004 Was Illegal and Improper.”

They found four serious violations of elections procedure and concluded: “For these reasons, the election should be declared null and void and reheld in accordance with the time honored procedure for all elections, that is; Nominations first, discussion, then a vote.”

My question is what took the Redevelopment Agency so long to advise the PAC that their elections were illegal? Did it just occur to them now? Why have they been silent all these years? The community has been incensed over that same issue in each year following the first PAC election in 1997.

The community has argued that the PAC’s outreach is not reaching them. There was the same problem with a lack of outreach by the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Shipyard, which also reports to the Redevelopment Agency.

Could it be that Redevelopment doesn’t really want the community to be informed and involved? On Dec. 2, when Redevelopment was rushing to give away the Hunters Point Shipyard to the nation’s largest homebuilder by approving a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with the Lennar Corp. – a move the community vehemently opposes - the community was locked out of the meeting.

Seems like time for the Board of Supervisors to step in and take control of the Redevelopment Agency for accountability reasons. In nearly every other county in California, the Redevelopment Agency is under the control of its Supervisors. It should be that way here. What’s happening instead is San Francisco Redevelopment is a law unto itself, accountable to nobody.

The public wants accountability, and who better than our elected officials to see to that. They are accountable to us.

The PAC and the CAC, even if they did better outreach and had proper elections, do not have the power to stop the Redevelopment Commission. Both the PAC and the CAC are “passive bodies,” meaning they have no authority to make a decision, only to make recommendations to the Redevelopment Commission, which is an “active body,” to address and adopt as it sees fit.

In the case of the Dec. 2 meeting, the Redevelopment Commission saw the recommendations of the CAC, but they still opted for adopting the agency staff report over the objections of the CAC.

Now you be the judge. If the PAC, which hasn’t had a legal election since 1997, makes a recommendation to the Redevelopment Commission to declare the whole community a blighted project area, your home or business could fall under eminent domain. So best to have your bags packed and nearby. You may be moving out just as the people of the Fillmore had to move.

Call and engage your Supervisors in a discussion of your concerns. Tell them you want the Redevelopment Agency held accountable to them, and you want both the PAC and the CAC to do community outreach so your voice can be heard.

After all, at the moment, it is your community. But it won’t be that way long if you don’t take action.

Phone numbers of all the Supervisors are in the blue “Government Listings” section at the front of your phone book.