“Greens, Ellis Act, 49er Stadium, Healthy Sat., Ma and Janet Reilly …”

by on April 28, 2006

Editor,

The race for the assembly between Fiona Ma and Janet Reilly is so dicey!
Fiona embraces the Ellis Act, and, even though she states that she would give seniors priority in new housing, has yet to act to protect evicted elderly. She also likes the death penalty. Reilly states that she is pro-tenant. But Eric Jaye is her campaign manager; he was also the manager for our beloved Mayor, Gruesome Newsom when he ran for office. Presently, I can’t support either for office.

Unfortunately, I am relegated to electoral bystander in this campaign.

Herbert J. Weiner, Ellis Act Evictee


Editor,

There may be a way to stop the Committee on Jobs, and the Chamber of Commerce and other private corporate lobbying groups from continuing to corrupt the voter’s initiative process as they did with their competing ballot measure – Prop G – 2000 to defeat the opening up of JFK Drive to pedestrians and families on Saturdays then.

See Paul’s “Progressive Park Vote in San Francisco:” http://www.runmuki.com/paul/writing/progvote2000.html

If Mayor Newsom fails his Democratic Party values, and thumbs his nose at the voters next week by deliberately vetoing the Healthy JFK Saturdays six month trial, the other, progressive Democrats and Green Party supervisor, who are standing up for the public interest, can go one step further and request that it be put it on Novembers ballot.

If that becomes necessary, you may want to consider asking the same supervisors to sponsor an accompanying reform initiative to: “absolutely prohibit, once and for all, any competing ballot measures in any public election in the City and County of San Francisco.”

And, provide that if a majority of the voters approve this landmark initiative reform, that it retroactively invalidates any competing measures on the same ballot. Beginning with Dede’s.

Defend the Commons!

Stephen Willis Save Golden Gate Park!


Dear Editor,

While I agree with your assessment of John Burton’s record, his support of Fiona Ma, a not at all progressive candidate, is bigger news. She is anti-tenant and has had a very unprogressive voting record on the Board of Supervisors. As a progressive, I find her conservative, pro-business, pro-landlord stance offensive. She “claims” to be progressive, showing up at rallies when it suits her. But she is a conservative Democrat in the Dianne Feinstein mold, just one step away from being a Republican. I find it shameful that John Burton would support her simply because of their history. She is an empty shell who will offer nothing to this great city of San Francisco. Look at her legislative record in San Francisco if you want to understand the full story.

Donna Linden San Francisco, CA Board Member of the San Francisco People’s Organization and Organizer for the Progressive Voter Project


Editor:

Thank you for your steady coverage of the important Democratic primary in Assembly District 12.

We want to clarify one important point you made in your analysis on April 28. We are attacking what we see as a potentially illegal independent expenditure coming from a long-dormant PAC founded and funded by John Burton.

We are asking the question * why would this dormant Sacramento PAC come into an assembly primary against the candidate endorsed by the Sierra Club, the Tenant’s Network, women’s groups, progressive labor and a broad coalition of community leaders?

The only connection we can see is Burton. If Burton coordinated with Ma, or encouraged the effort, that would make the expenditure illegal. We have called for an investigation to determine the facts.

It is fair enough to point out Burton’s past accomplishments for tenants. But, he will do tenants no favor if he succeeds in electing Supervisor Fiona Ma, who praises the Ellis Act and has one of the most consistently anti-tenant records on the Board of Supervisors.

Your readers should also be aware that yet another so-called independent expenditure for Ma is now in progress. This group calls itself “Californians United” and it is largely funded this year by real estate groups and interests. In the past, the group has been funded by tobacco companies and a virtual who’s who of Sacramento interests.

This expenditure is probably not illegal (although we need to reserve judgment until we know more facts). But this group has a long record of using Sacramento money to elect the most conservative candidate in Democratic primaries. We hope your readers will keep a sharp eye out for the fine print disclaimers on ads they receive in the next five weeks to see just who is paying for mailers and TV time.

And we also hope your readers will visit Janet Reilly’s website at * www.janetreilly.com* http://www.janetreilly.com/ to read her comprehensive plans on Single Payer health care, protecting our environment and improving our schools.

Thank you,

Alex Laskey Janet Reilly for Assembly


Editor,

While I generally appreciate the coverage on the Bayview Redevelopment Plan:, your last posting, “Supes Eliminate 49er Stadium Funding from Bayview Redevelopment Plan” on Apr. 26‚ 2006 seriously misses the mark as to what is really happening. The issue was never whether monies would be used from the Bayview redevelopment plan to fund the stadium. Even the mayor’s office wouldn’t have tried to get away with that! Rather, the real issue is whether the planning under the so-called “Candlestick Point Special Use District” should be allowed to proceed on a separate development track from the larger development plan and the EIR being pushed through the process now. There are serious issues of democracy and planning at stake (CEQA etc.). It was after all Prop. D in 1997 which passed by the narrowest of margins which authorized the special use district in the first place under an entirely different set of political circumstances. Now that the mayor is seeking to tinker with that to include housing, the whole things smacks of piecemeal development. Bayview residents should demand a single comprehensive planning process along with single plan, and a single EIR for the whole thing.

To allow the mayor to proceed with secret negotiations with the 49’s team and condo developers for the most valuable patches of waterfront is a recipe for planning disaster. And while both the mayor and supervisor Maxwell speak of respecting the “will of the voters” with regard to Prop. D, their actions speak otherwise, especially with regard to the slimy “pre-emptive” maneuvers in the State Assembly carried by Migden, and coming soon to City Hall in a piece of legislation written by Maxwell and assigned (I believe) to the Rules Committee.

If the Assembly legislation is allowed to go foreword, and the mayor’s office, through its legal “consultations” gets a green light to do what it wants–say from Judge Warren of the San Francisco Superior Court–it will become seriously difficult for opponents to challenge the plan (whatever it morphs into) on CEQA or other grounds. And then what will end up happening is that the only serious block of funding in place now–the 100 million authorized by Prop. D–will be used to fund private development and condos which will fund the stadium which will enrich the pockets of the team owners and developers while the larger plan is allowed to flounder in an extended community process in which nothing material happens for the benefit of the community.

Steven Chapman


Dear Randy,

BLESS you for this story. I live in Los Angeles (the Studio City area) and we are galvanizing our forces for a fight. I describe the Ellis Act eviction crisis as “An assault by the powerful upon the vulnerable.” In addition, many of these older rent-controlled buildings here are quaint visions of loveliness with landscaping, grassy areas & mature trees which support birds, insects and other creatures. Very natural. What happens each time is the emptied apartment buildings are then leveled, the land is cleared w/not a tree left standing & a gigantic concrete condominium fills the plot of land.

The local media has been ignoring this catastrophe & the sole article I have seen came from the LA Alternative, which you’ve probably seen (if not, link to the story is: http://www.laalternative.com/index.php/2006/03/24/the-upsell). Nothing in the Daily News or LA Times — our local media is, I believe, INTENTIONALLY ignoring this. Thank God for San Francisco and Beyond Chron!

I have just forwarded your article & several others from your paper to the head of the Studio City residents group that is banding together to fight this nightmare which is happening all over the vast City of Los Angeles. The poorest residents are (as always) the most-abused and least able to fight this, and I am enraged by it. Even “professionals” of moderate incomes are being tossed aside. My building in Studio City, where I’ve spent 16 lovely, leafy years in a small tree-filled oasis of a 1955 rent-controlled garden apartment now looms under the same threat — we’re anticipating eviction notices soon. My street is being destroyed, as indeed are entire neighborhoods.

And this disaster certainly concerns the members of the Screen Actors Guild, most of whom struggle to earn a living as performing artists, as all the modestly priced housing is being targeting for elimination.

Thank you, Randy, thank you for letting us know someone else is aware of what’s going on & cares enough to publicize it. We need all the help we can get to fix this odious Ellis Act.

With best wishes and thanks,

Valerie Yaros, Historian, Screen Actors Guild


Editor,

Most Greens I know do not support Matt running against Pelosi. But we all agree on the importance of making sure that a voice that differs from the powers that be is still present with its perspective. If the Democrats won’t be the offsetting balance to the Republicans, then it is the Greens and other third parties, independents and decline to state voters who must be that counter weight.

Don Eichelberger, SF Green

You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: rshaw@beyondchron.org
or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)
415-771-1287 (fax)

Contributor

Filed under: Archive

Translate »