Author: admin

Posted on

NEWSOM JUST QUIETLY FLOATED AN IDEA THAT COULD HELP FIX CALIFORNIA’S HOUSING AND FIRE RECOVERY CRISES

By Ben Metcalf : sfchronicle – excerpt (audio track)

Rebuilding after the Los Angeles fires is going to be time-consuming and expensive. Accordingly, much attention has been given to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s recent executive actions to speed up the process and cut red tape, including by waiving environmental reviews, sidestepping Coastal Commission oversight and providing additional state resources to city and county planning and building officials

However, a different and little-noticed idea from the governor, included as part of his budget proposal to the Legislature early in January, also has the potential to be impactful. A small paragraph teases a big vision for housing: a new California housing and homelessness agency.

This proposed agency — which would replace the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency that oversees a kitchen sink of other state functions (such as horse racing and cannabis regulation) — promises instead a “more integrated and effective” administrative framework for addressing the state’s housing and homelessness challenges. It would oversee all of the existing housing entities and be tasked with leading the state’s response on aligning housing policies with transportation, climate and community planning… (more)

We need to look into the process for creating and dissolving state agencies because that is what Newsom is suggesting. What happens to the staff? We might want to talk to them.

What is the connection between an agency that oversees Business, Consumer Services and Housing and one that oversees Housing and Homelessness issues. Are they eliminating state oversight of Business and Consumer Services, combing them with other agency, or setting up a new oversight agency?

The new agency just adds climate and community planning to housing and transportation. How does combining “housing policies with transportation, climate and community planning” solve homelessness? Is this a ploy to circumvent CEQA more than they already have?

This makes no sense unless it is a power play. Once again the state wants to force change on us and is eliminating some basic services and oversight we need in the process.

Once again our state representatives are trying to control us while eliminating the basic services and oversight we need.

Posted on

SFPD converting SoMa parking lot into one-stop shop for arrests, drug treatment, and homeless busing

By Abigail Van Neely : missionlocal – excerpt

‘Street fair’-like tents proposed for site where drug-users could be offered choice of jail, treatment — or bus journey

A third of a parking lot at 469 Stevenson Street will become a temporary law enforcement and treatment center to curb drug use on Sixth Street.

Hours after the Board of Supervisors voted in support of giving Mayor Daniel Lurie expanded powers to mitigate the city’s drug, mental health and homelessness crises, San Francisco police held a town hall to address part of their contribution to the effort: a parking lot.

Specifically, a parking lot at 469 Stevenson St., a stone’s throw away from the notoriously chaotic Sixth Street corridor, which Lurie has focused on as an early priority for his administration.

Police plan to operate 469 Stevenson as a hub for directing drug users to services and offering to bus them out of San Francisco — or putting them in jail. The site was the subject of an infamous fight when the Board of Supervisors temporarily blocked hundreds of housing units there in 2021, which led the state to investigate the city’s housing laws.

The city is “keeping expectations low” as it tries “doing something different,” San Francisco Assistant Police Chief David Lazar said on Tuesday evening. But, Lazar said, “If the model works, we can copy and paste it.”… (more)

How will the SFPD determine if the experiment is working? If neighbors are feeling better about the streets’ conditions, users are taking advantage of the services, and 911 calls are down, Lazar said the city would consider the project a success.

RELATED:
Posted on

Homeless families sent eviction notices from S.F. shelters

by XUEER LU : missionlocal – excerpt

Karina Ortiz, a 26-year-old living in the Salvation Army Harbor House homeless shelter with her husband and seven-year-old daughter, will be evicted in March — the same month that she is due to give birth to a baby boy.

On the morning of Jan. 21, Ortiz stood in Room 200 of City Hall, joined by a half dozen other families also facing eviction. The group handed a staffer a letter demanding a meeting to address their urgent needs and asking the mayor to rescind the evictions.

These families all received an eviction letter with the operative date of Feb. 8 or 10 — about three weeks away. Ortiz managed to get a one-month reprieve.

The eviction notices came as a result of a change in policy from the San Francisco Department of Homeless and Supportive Housing in December. Under the new policy, homeless families are now only permitted to stay in city shelters for 90 days; previously, they could stay indefinitely. For families unable to get housing subsidies, this will put them back onto the street…

San Francisco has 405 families — 1,103 people — experiencing homelessness, according to the city’s point-in-time count report in 2024. However, the count is not accurate and tends to be an undercount…

“I’m very worried because we don’t have any place to go,” said Maria Zavala, a 37-year-old mother of three children in tears. Zavala’s family is living off of her husband’s biweekly garbage collector salary of $1,300. The family of five is cramped in a room with two sets of bunk beds. She said she can’t work because she needs to take care of her disabled six-year-old daughter full-time. … (more)

If San Francisco Department of Homeless and Supportive Housing can’t take care of 405 families by resending a decision to evict them, it is hard to believe that department will do much for the thousands of homeless who are living on the street. This seems like something our new mayor could fix in a flash by resend that decision.

Posted on

Lurie Rolls Out Fentanyl State of Emergency Ordinance, But Supervisors’ Dissent Already Brewing

By Joe KuKura : sfist – excerpt

New SF Mayor Daniel Lurie introduced his “Fentanyl State of Emergency Ordinance” on Tuesday, but there’s already some pushback, as it hands out no-oversight money to department heads to create potential for Mohammed Nuru-type self-dealing.

When San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie was inaugurated last Wednesday, Heather Knight’s New York Times dispatch had a scoop. “His declaration of a fentanyl emergency,” Knight wrote, “will speed its way to the Board of Supervisors, akin to a City Council, on Tuesday for what is expected to be swift approval.”

But that’s not exactly what happened. The legislation was not ready for a Board of Supervisors vote Tuesday (there may have been pushback from the City Attorney on some if its specifics, we’ll probably never know). It was merely “introduced” on Tuesday with no vote. And the Board’s response indicates this “swift approval” may not be as swift as hoped…

But Lurie’s ordinance already has opponents on the board.

“I guess we’re doing something kind of new at Roll Call today and expressing our support for initiatives — or in my case lack of support,” Supervisor Shamann Walton said. “During COVID, we gave emergency powers to the mayor with the presence of a specific plan. Right now we have legislation that requests waiving processes and allowing for swift decision-making, but we don’t have a plan in front of us.”…

Mission Local has been stressing for a couple months that, legally speaking, this is not an actual “Fentanyl State of Emergency.” They point to the language defining SF state of emergency orders, which notes that “The situation must be something that the City could not have specifically anticipated and prevented, such as an earthquake or a terrorist attack.” We’ve known fentanyl has been here for years, which is why London Breed’s 2021 attempt to declare a fentanyl state of emergency was renamed as a “Tenderloin state of emergency.”… (more)

Posted on

Rafael Mandelman is San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors president

By Joe Eskenazi : missionlocal – excerpt

Watching the Board of Supervisors elect its president often feels a bit like observing a live-action game of three-card monte. There’s ever so much twirling about and, until the cup is lifted, you don’t know where the votes are going to be.
Today, however, the political legerdemain took place off-camera. After several furious days of votes being whipped and deals being brokered, District 8 Supervisor Rafael Mandelman ended up being the sole nominee for the position. And, lo, he won.
There’s a lot of cachet in being board president, because it’s a position that has great possibilities. If Mayor Daniel Lurie is hit by a meteor, or runs off and joins the French Foreign Legion, for instance, Mandelman will be your new mayor. And it could happen: In just 2017, Mayor Ed Lee was felled by a heart attack while in the frozen-foods section of the city’s worst Safeway, and Board President London Breed was the next woman up…

So, Mandelman is board president, having been the sole nominee. But expect Melgar to oversee the County Transportation Authority and its billions of dollars in transit monies. Expect Melgar to also accept the mixed blessing of helming the land-use committee.
Why did this happen? Mandelman is perceived by his colleagues as more predictable than Melgar in his votes, for good or ill, and more willing to make deals. The bloc of left-leaning supervisors is counting on it; it will be lost on nobody that he is in this position because of their votes. Expect Connie Chan, who successfully lobbied her colleagues for Mandelman, to remain budget chair…(more)
Posted on

New audit shows serious contracting problems at the SFPUC

By Tim Redmond : missionlocal – excerpt

Under the now-jailed general manager, proper safeguards were missing, Board of Supes report shows. That’s why voters approved an inspector general.

San Francisco will soon have an Office of the Inspector General, with a mandate to investigate and expose corruption in city agencies. Proposition C, which authorized the new office, passed with about 60 percent of the vote in November, and soon Controller Greg Wagner will appoint someone to run it. The mayor and the supes have to approve the appointment.

In the meantime, Sup. Dean Preston has asked the Budget and Legislative Analyst to conduct audits of all the city departments that have the authority to sign public works contracts.

Six department heads—at the SFPUC, the Airport, the Port, the Recreation and Parks Department, the SF Municipal Transportation Authority, and the Department of Public Works—have that authority.

That practice has caused some serious problems in the past, and the former director of the SF Public Utilities Commission is now in prison for abusing it. So is the former head of DPW… (more)

Posted on

City of San Francisco set to close parking site for homeless living in vehicles

KPIX CBS News

This is a problem that someone should be able to fix as soon as the new administration steps in.

We understand there is a well-managed private RV park close by that cost less to operate than the city managed one. Perhaps there is someone better able to manage this safe parking site and our new Mayor will find that person in time to save it. Trailer parks are a perfectly legal and widely accepted lifestyle for many. Why San Francisco opposes them is somewhat of a mystery.

Posted on

Mayor Breed’s Hypocrisy

by  : beyondchron – excerpt

Mayor Blocked 3 Permanent Drug-Free Housing Projects

Mayor Breed allocated $3.7 million for permanent drug-free SRO housing in her 2023-24 budget. None of this money has been spent.

Did drug problems end in San Francisco? No. Did other permanent drug-free housing options available to graduates from transitional programs emerge? No.

The mayor did not spend a dime of the $3.7 million allocated for permanent supportive drug-free housing in the 2023-24 budget year. Instead, Mayor Breed intervened three times to block the program she claimed to support.

The North Beach Hotel

“I think a project like this could be a game changer, and very transformative and exciting for so many people who deserve a second chance to live a life free and clean and sober in the city and county of San Francisco,” Breed said.”–SF Chronicle, February 8, 2024…

The San Remo Hotel

The San Remo Hotel, 2237 Mason, was completely vacant (it is legally a tourist hotel). I met with Peskin to assess his support. Peskin not only supported the project but said he would take responsibility for community outreach and community support. I thought that was great. But when I conveyed that to the mayor’s office I was told they didn’t want Peskin doing that. They wanted me to do the outreach.

So I began outreaching to North Beach groups. None expressed opposition. Some asked that I meet with their Board and this was scheduled. All was going well when the mayor’s office told me that wanted one of their close political allies, Cedric Akbar of Westside Community Services, to do door-to-door outreach around the San Remo.

I thought that was odd. We did not need Akbar’s help to do outreach. Akbar was running for the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee at the time and I assumed the mayor was looking to help his campaign by assigning him outreach to potential voters (he was elected). Wanting to move the project forward, I said fine to Akbar’s plans…

Steve Adami of Salvation Army also said that permanent drug-free housing didn’t work. I thought that was odd because the Salvation Army was co-sponsoring Matt Haney’s statewide bill mandating money for permanent drug-free housing. After our call I alerted the Bay Area Council about this contradiction (they were co-sponsoring Haney’s bill) and heard from Salvation Army that Adami did not speak for them. He later recanted his opposition to permanent drug free housing expressed at the meeting.

Residents in Westside/Salvation Army programs do not get tenants’ rights.  These are transitional “programs” that residents must leave to get the permanent drug-free housing they need.

What I realized was going on here was Mayor Breed trying to shift $3.7 million from the Tenderloin Housing Clinic to her favored nonprofits. The mayor was also reversing her support for THC’s plan to provide a bridge to permanent drug-free housing for those graduating from transitional programs. The Salvation Army and Westside do not provide permanent drug-free housing so that was not where the mayor now wanted this money to go.

What I anticipated would happen after that meeting did happen. The mayor killed her once heavily promoted permanent drug-free housing plan…(more)

Reading this makes me feel some-what vindicated. For some time I have watched Breed flit from one shiny new object to another, never giving any of her proposals time to work. What is particularly galling is the facts that she blame everyone else for not building any affordable housing, when all along it was her holding onto the money, and or, frittering it away on someone else. We shall soon see what she did with it if it is not in the coffers waiting to be spent.

Posted on

He lost the mayor’s race, but Aaron Peskin isn’t going anywhere

By Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez : sfstandard – excerpt

Supervisor Aaron Peskin may have lost his bid for mayor, but he isn’t going anywhere.  Though he’ll soon be termed out from his longtime perch on the Board of Supervisors, the Napoleon of North Beach is priming to rally progressive troops against the monied interests who spent millions of dollars in the election.   “I don’t think San Francisco needs new organizations. They just need better coordination and leadership,” he said. “And this is a ripe opportunity to bring them all together.”

 

In an interview with The Standard, Peskin said that despite speculation, he isn’t interested in serving as, for instance, chief of staff for mayor-elect Daniel Lurie or the city’s first inspector general. (Regardless, Peskin would be barred from such roles by a rule that prohibits employment at City Hall for a year after leaving.) But Peskin did call Lurie to offer any help he could, he said.

Instead of a staff role, Peskin plans to unite a loose collection of progressive Democrat groups — neighborhood groups, Democratic clubs, civic organizations, and labor — to push back against the influence of wealthy power players in local politics.

A cadre of folks whose net worth borders on the bonkers — including billionaire Bill Oberndorf, who backs Republicans nationally, and The Standard chairman Michael Moritz — have channeled millions of dollars into political groups like TogetherSF, Neighbors for a Better San Francisco, and GrowSF.

In this election, such well-heeled donors dropped coins aplenty: Moritz spent $3.1 million; Oberndorf spent $1.1 million; former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, $1.4 million; Ripple CEO Chris Larsen, roughly $1 million; and tech angel investor Ron Conway, $438,000. That’s to say nothing of the city’s new mayor, Levi Strauss heir Daniel Lurie, who self-funded his campaign to the tune of $8 million.

The outcome of all that spending was mixed.…(more)

Posted on

SF Superior Court Strikes Down Residential Vacancy Tax

insidesf – excerpt

The San Francisco Superior Court has struck down a residential vacancy tax slated to take effect in 2025, ruling that the tax is unconstitutional.

Voters approved the Empty Homes Tax in 2022, which required owners of apartments or condos in structures with three or more units to pay a tax on units vacant for 182 or more days in a calendar year. Filing and fees were scheduled to begin in 2025.

However, the San Francisco Apartment Association, Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute, San Francisco Association of Realtors and four individual landlords filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court in February 2023 to challenge the constitutionality of the law. And the San Francisco Superior Court ruled yesterday morning that the tax violated the Constitution and imposed an unlawful burden on privacy interests, while also being pre-empted by the state’s Ellis Act.

As it stands now, the residential vacancy tax is no longer in effect. The city will appeal the decision and debate will continue. (Here’s a link to the court decision.)

Owners in this property category now don’t need to file or pay any fees to the city. I’ll keep you updated on any future developments…(more)