San Francisco Faces Major Battles in 2006

by Randy Shaw via Beyond Chron

Tue, Jan 3, 2006 9:25AM

After 2005 focused on the Governor’s statewide ballot initiatives, San Francisco faces some critical local issues in 2006. Should the city continue to approve luxury condos in exchange for affordable housing and other community benefits, or is this trade-off not worth the resulting gentrification? Will the Mayor and Supes continue balancing the budget by cutting services and raising fees, or instead seek voter approval for new taxes? Debate over these key issues has a citywide focus, but is also central to the battle over making Mid-Market a Redevelopment Area. This proposal to deny low-income residents the power to influence land-use decisions in their community will either expose the hypocrisy of San Francisco’s “liberal” reputation or show that the city has learned from its past; the issue also forces the Mayor and Board to seriously analyze how the city can maintain its services longterm when the bulk of projected new tax revenue is diverted to the Redevelopment Agency. Add rising homicides, the exodus of kids from the city, and a new round of salary negotiations with city unions and it is clear why 2006 will test Mayor Newsom’s political leadership as never before.

As 2006 begins, San Francisco’s support for luxury housing developments, service cuts and fee increases to cover the city budget, and the rapid expansion of Redevelopment Areas is being challenged by progressives and conservatives alike. This could be the first year since the height of the dot-com boom in 2000 when the public and politicians chart a new direction for San Francisco’s future.

On the development front, the luxury towers approved for Rincon Hill have become akin to the Bryant Square project in 2000 that galvanized opposition to the “build everything” policies of Mayor Willie Brown. Progressives increasingly believe that the community benefits obtained in exchange for luxury development are outweighed by the social costs.

More
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=2799#more

§Political Races of 2006: A Preview

by Casey Mills via Beyond Chron (reposted)

Tue, Jan 3, 2006 9:25AM

Locally, 2005 ended up being a relatively quiet election year. ’06, however, should be quite different. With five Supervisor’s races, contested State Assembly and Senate races, a formidable list of ballot initiatives in the pipeline, and the entire Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC) up for grabs, we could begin to see fireworks quite soon. Voters will head to the polls twice this year, with June and November splitting the political drama between them. Here’s an early look at what races will be contentious, which outcomes will most affect the city’s political landscape, and which ‘battles’ could end up being much ado about nothing.

The local June ’06 election will be highlighted by the Reilly-Ma Assembly race, the Yee-Nevin Senate contest, and the election of a new Democratic County Central Committee, whose primary task involves endorsing candidates and campaigns for the party. The big news affecting the statewide campaign outlook for June 2006 involves the surprising failure of the anti-gay marriage state ballot initiative to qualify. This failure means that instead of a record voter turnout in June, the number of voters going to the polls will be far fewer than in the fall, especially if anti-marriage groups succeed in their current attempts to qualify an initiative for November.

In terms of June ballot initiatives, Supervisor Aaron Peskin’s attempt to reform the Port Commission may end up causing the most controversy. Peskin’s proposal would remove the Commission’s entire current membership, put term limits on commissioners, expand it to seven members, and create requirements for appointment.

Read More
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=2797#more

Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)

§Unimaginative Stasis in City Politics

by critical ruminations

Tue, Jan 3, 2006 3:01PM

Randy Shaw and Casey Mills do an admirable job analyzing the coming year of realpolitik in San Francisco politics. As always, they see local politics as being the most productive place for activists to focus their attention.

Reading their views, however, can yet leave one a bit chilled: as keen as they are on the minutiae that compose the drama of the city's political conflicts, both seem frustratingly oblivious to the city's political and imaginative stasis-- especially as a municipal leader on the State and National scene.

Most frustrating is their recognition that most of the supervisors, and mayor, will face virtually nil opposition or debate regarding the future of the city. Major issues, like getting Real Estate and Big Business Interests to pay their fair share of taxes, seem to be viewed as ongoing, almost intractable issues, that are to be chipped away at.

In the end, what does the city get? Peaceful consensus to keep the status quo in place, and keep change mostly cosmetic.

Meanwhile families and children continue to leave a more expensive and decaying city, more SUVs clog the roads as public transportation deteriorates, whole neighborhoods are left to rot just as they are targeted for franchise outlet encroachment-- all mostly because the Democratic Party (Democratic in name only!) business is conducted on cliquish lines obsequious to financial interests, but unbeholden to the poor, immigrant, and working classes.

Where are the more indignant and iconoclastic independent voices? Where is real debate?

Can progressives on the left only rely on modest cumulative local victories to achieve a better city just as outside revolutionary events are apt to be coming their way? (The ongoing commercialization and commodification of all social institutions (including health) in the U.S.; the increasing federal assault on privacy and its criminalization of the poor; the ongoing costly and criminal war in Iraq and its impact on this nation's real security; and the likely impending economic meltdown resulting from a bursting real estate bubble, depreciation of the U.S. dollar value, and higher energy costs-- these are all revolutionary events that might come to mind.)

There is nothing wrong for hoping that 2006 will be a year for deserved improvents in the city of San Francisco-- but can there be room for concern that any achievements local progressives make might well be for naught unless they had seriously looked at issues from broader, more diverse, and more imaginative perspectives? Will San Francisco be an advancing and resilient city, or will it be apologizing in the wake of dashed hopes-- treading water with only survival in mind?

Add a Comment

Support Independent Media

We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!