Category: Action

Posted on

Albertsons is infuriating Bay Area shoppers over vacant grocery stores

By Susan Guerrero : sfgate – excerpt

Town Hall July 23, 2026 on the Towering plans at the Marina Safeway

In the heart of downtown Larkspur, a tiny shopping center has become the grave site of a former Lucky Supermarket. The building, with its barren storefront and sealed doors, has haunted the neighborhood since 2023, yet there are currently no plans to open another grocery store in its place.

Tina McArthur, a Larkspur resident and board president of the historic Lark Theater, blames the building’s owner: Albertsons Companies.

“I think it’s terrible that they just left their building like that,” McArthur said. “The lights are still on. … I really don’t think they care one bit.”

The Lucky store is not an outlier. Albertsons — the parent company of Safeway, Vons and other major supermarkets — owns dozens of vacant surplus properties across the U.S., including at least seven vacant California stores listed for sale. An SFGATE investigation found that Albertsons appears to have a history of using its vast real estate portfolio to block the opening of competing grocers through restrictive land covenants or by keeping its properties vacant. In some cases, Albertsons has introduced controversial development plans on its properties that could raze existing supermarkets like Trader Joe’s in Oakland’s Rockridge neighborhood and Safeway in San Rafael without replacing those markets.

Albertsons could leave even more vacant properties on the market as the grocery company plans to shutter an unknown number of underperforming stores in California, and beyond, after its failed merger with the Kroger Company…

Grocery companies that keep properties vacant or add covenants to prevent future stores contribute to limited food access in communities, according to Christopher Leslie, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine…

The race for housing  Albertsons’ impacts on grocery availability in the Bay Area are likely to only increase as the grocery conglomerate flexes its muscle into property development. Align Real Estate and Albertsons are developing housing projects at Safeway locations throughout the Bay Area, including plans to build almost 3,500 units of housing across San Francisco’s Marina, Bernal Heights, Outer Richmond and Fillmore districts. The proposed residential housing project that could demolish the Safeway in San Rafael is not part of the Align Real Estate portfolio and is instead managed by Mill Creek Residential…(more)

Lots to take in here. I can remember hearing about food deserts from Malia Cohen years ago. Now we all are being faced with them.

What do we belive and what can be done to break those covenants? The food deserts are yet another reason to blame Wiener density bills for the loss of grocery stores as grocery chains are playing into his “HOUSING ONLY” zoning directives, except when he needs an exception and then he creates one..

Posted on

Landline service could end for good across the Bay Area and California

By Amanda Bartlett : sfgate – excerpt (audio track)

AT&T is hoping to remove landline service in several parts of California, raising concern among residents who say they rely on the service for myriad reasons…

AT&T secured a big win in its lengthy battle to pull landline service across the state of California after the Federal Communications Commission approved a petition from the telecommunications giant last week to end the service. The plan would cut off access to 184,000 households starting June 1, 2027, the Mercury News reported, though it remains unclear how many homes in the Bay Area would be affected.

“Only 3% of households we serve in California still use traditional phone service. We’re taking a phased, year-long approach to upgrade customers in these areas where better, more reliable services are available,” AT&T said in a recent news release, adding that “no customer will be left without access to phone or 911 service.”… (more)

 

Posted on

We are told that affordability is the Number One issue for voters this year

Investigating the Safeway closures turned into a multitude of detailed investigations that are summed up here rather well on this site by agricultural organizations.  https://www.affordabilitywatchca.org 
…
They cover some of the major reasons I have been talking about for the high cost of food and huge changes In California’s agricultural industry. https://www.affordabilitywatchca.org/food

This week we saw some possible good news on the Marina Safeway. Someone is taking the nearby park issue seriously according to the sfist.

Opponents Say Proposed 25-Story Marina Safeway Project May Not Be Eligible For Fast-Tracking

By Leeanne Maxwell : sfist – excerpt

The proposed 790-unit Marina Safeway redevelopment was granted fast-track status under a state housing law, but opponents argue the project may not actually qualify because the law requires that the majority of the surrounding land already be developed for “urban uses.”

The latest challenge to the proposed 25-story Marina Safeway redevelopment centers on whether the project should have been allowed to bypass a full environmental review, as the Chronicle reports. In a letter signed by several neighborhood groups, Marina Supervisor Stephen Sherrill argues the project does not qualify for streamlining under Assembly Bill 2011 because the law reportedly requires at least 75% of adjoining parcels to already be developed for “urban uses.”

Sherrill contends the requirement isn’t met because much of the property surrounding the Safeway site consists of parks and open space, including Marina Green, the Marina Yacht Harbor, and nearby land managed by SF Recreation and Park or the National Park Service at Fort Mason...(more)

Posted on

Supervisor Dorsey wants city-funded nonprofits to report their lobbying efforts at City Hall.

By J.D. Morris, Alyce McFadden : sfchronicle – excerpt
non profits paying lobbyists

Can’t happen fast enough…

Should city-funded nonprofits in San Francisco have to disclose their lobbying activities in the same way that for-profit corporations do? One city lawmaker thinks so, and he’s working on legislation to enact the idea.

Supervisor Matt Dorsey intends to propose an ordinance that would eliminate a provision in city law that exempts nonprofits from local rules requiring organizations to register their lobbyists and publicly report when they seek to influence officials at City Hall.

In a Wednesday letter to city lawyers asking for help preparing the ordinance, Dorsey said the legislation was intended to create more transparency around how city-funded nonprofits are allocating their resources. San Francisco has roughly doubled its spending on nonprofits since 2019, the Chronicle previously reported, but Dorsey noted that the city has simultaneously seen a “troubling pattern” of “ethical scandals, mismanagement” and other problems among nonprofits that provide crucial services.

Dorsey submitted the letter, which is likely to face pushback from nonprofits and their political allies, the same day supervisors sat for a marathon hearing to receive public comment about Mayor Daniel Lurie’s nearly $17 billion city budget proposal. Hours after the meeting of the supervisors’ appropriations committee began, the line of people waiting to speak still snaked through the corridors of City Hall. People sat huddled on the marble floors, some sporting matching shirts and jackets representing nonprofits and community groups… (more)

How many non-profits spend money on lobbyists? We know that some of them do, but., probably not the many.

Posted on

Citizens’ Democracy Report – Massive fee increase for citizens’ ballot arguments

by Patrick Monnette-Shaw and John Crabtree

Breaking news on City Hall Proposal for 400% increases proposed for both ballot argument filing fees and per-word fees. A Citizens’ Democracy Report & Citizens’ Anti-Corruption Report Breaking News Story.

Mayor Lurie’s revised plan to increase filing fees and per-word fees for paid ballot arguments in the official Voter Information Pamphlet (VIP), which is mailed to voters in the City & County of San Francisco; and his new plan to eliminate publishing the legal text of each ballot measure in San Francisco’s VIP. Both measures will weaken democratic elections in San Francisco, and likely hand over even more power to special-interest recipient committees funded by billionaires to adversely influence San Francisco elections.

There are two companion Ordinances being heard at either the Budget and Appropriations Committee on June 17 at 10:00 a.m., or the next day on June 18 (apparently if the Committee runs out of time on 6/17). Both measures are being rushed through the Board of Supervisors Budget and Appropriations Committee without adequate public review. Although the Mayor’s Budget Director submitted both pieces of legislation on Monday June 1, it took two full work weeks until Friday June 12 before the public learned the legislation would be heard five days later on June 17… (more)

The two measures are Agenda Items 6 and 7 on the Appropriations Committee meeting agenda…

UPDATE: The issues were heard at the Appropriations Committee and were tabled by the Chair, Connie Chan. THEY NEED TO BE WATCHED AS THEY WILL COME BACK.

The second Ordinance, Board File #260604, will “remove the requirement that the Department of Elections publish the legal text of ballot measures in the Voter Information Pamphlet sent to voters before each election, and allow the Director of Elections to determine the format of the Voter Information Pamphlet without the Ballot Simplification Committee’s approval.”… (more)

In place of including the legal text of each ballot measure in the Voter Guide, voters would be forced to locate it on-line, at a Branch Library, in-person at the Department of Elections, or by e-mail or U.S. Mail. The costs of providing it by e-mail or U.S. mail — which may ultimately cost more than including it in the VIP — were not estimated for the consideration of this proposal.

The Ordinance to eliminate publishing the legal text in the Voter Guide would become effective 31 days after passage — meaning it would go into effect for the November 2026 election.

Therefore, all of the Charter Amendments the Mayor is introducing for his “Commission Streamlining” reform ballot measures will have their legal text kept out of the VIP in what appears to be a creative way to keep those ballot measures’ legal text as far from the voters as possible… (more)

Patrick Monette-Shaw will continue his breaking-news reporting on all of these developments in the Westside Observer as well.

 

 

Posted on

New Melgar-Lurie plan for affordable housing is great; cutting other funding is not

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

Expanding the Housing Trust Fund could bring in $125 million a year. Repealing Prop. I could wipe out almost as much

Anything that adds more money for affordable housing in San Francisco is, by default, a good thing. The Council of Community Housing Organizations is celebrating new legislation, originated by CCHO and and SF Community Land Trust, that would increase the city’s Housing Trust Fund to as much as $125 million a year.

It’s not an unusual approach, by historic standards: In essence, the Trust Fund would grow as part of what we used to call “tax increment financing.” The additional property tax money that comes in from the city’s radical upzoning would in part (a fairly small part) be dedicated to affordable housing. It’s also called “value capture.”

Sup. Myrna Melgar took on the legislation to make this new approach happen, and Mayor Daniel Lurie signed on, and it will wind up on the ballot in November. The plan is to make sure the trust fund is in the City Charter, so no future mayor or supervisors can divert the money to other purposes.

Since it’s a defined revenue stream, the city could issue revenue bonds against it, bringing in immediate money for housing.

All of that is good. As CCHO Executive Director Quintin Mecke notes:

“Today, more than 17,000 approved affordable homes sit in San Francisco’s pipeline — entitled, designed, and waiting. Ready for permits. Ready on zoning. Waiting only for funding.

The Housing Trust Fund, as currently structured, falls short of what that pipeline demands.

The proposed Charter Amendment can begin to change that. This is a transformation, and we should name it as one.”…

UPDATE: Melgar told me there is no deal involving Prop. I; the only deal was to reduce the amount of required affordable housing in new projects. She said she is not currently supporting the BUILD Act.

Former Sup. Dean Preston and his allies are circulating petitions that would make Prop. I permanent–and would mandate that the money go for affordable housing. Lurie will oppose that.

Some folks will say that Preston and SF’s chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America are undermining the “deal” that trades away Prop. I and inclusionary housing for this new, valuable, steady income source.

But Mecke told me that in his meetings with Melgar’s Office and Lurie’s Office, nobody said that the new trust fund hinged on everyone supporting the repeal of Prop. I and the cut in affordability requirements. “I was never asked to agree to a deal,” he said.… (more)

This continues to be one of the most convoluted way to operate an affordable housing plan. No matter where you look there is a “gotcha”. Perhaps when the dust settles one may be able to look at what options remain for the voters to respond to in November.

Meanwhile, what is being done to get the people who need housing into the thousands of empty units, some owned by companies that are or will soon declare bankruptcy and may well owe the city millions of dollars in back taxes.

We hear that Parkmerced is largely empty and the owners are broke. What can’t these properties, which can’t be in worse shade than some of the affordable housing projects we hear about, be turned into a temporary housing project for the people who are already signed up for housing?

RELATED:

How a CCHO idea became a $3 billion Charter Amendment — and why the fight isn’t over.  (By Quintin Mecke, SF CCHO : substack )

 

 

Posted on

Lurie wants to make ballot arguments too expensive for small campaigns

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

EXCLUSIVE: Dramatic increase in fees would help big-money and undermine grassroots groups. It goes before the supes Wednesday.

Mayor Daniel Lurie is moving to increase by a factor of five the cost of putting an argument in the ballot handbook, undermining the most affordable way for grassroots campaigns to reach voters.

Under his legislation, which no local news media has covered, the cost of an argument would increase from $200 and $2 a word to $1,000 and $10 a word by 2030. That would mean a 200-word ballot argument that now costs $600 would cost $3,000.

Five ballot arguments, a modest number for a lot of campaigns, would cost $15,000—more than many community-based campaigns could afford.

That would give big-money operations even more clout in San Francisco.

The measure comes before the Budget and Appropriations Committee Wednesday/17 at 1:30 pm… (more)

At the June GA meeting CSFN members voted to approve a letter objecting to this action. The letter sent to the Budget and Appropriations Committee. re: Ordinances 260603 & 260604.
CSFN Oppose Ballot Fee Increase

Posted on

A week of budget protests as Lurie’s brutal cuts hit everyone except the cops

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

Games at City Hall are never ending as are the protests against them. If you are lucky the odds are tilting your way. Photo by zrants.

Plus: Letting big institutions off the planning hook—and yet another bizarre prosecution from DA Brooke Jenkins. That’s The Agenda for June 14-19

The Board of Supes Budget and Appropriations Committee will continue hearings on the mayor’s budget proposal this week—and City Hall will be filled with protesters. The People’s Budget Coalition plans a series of creative actions; here’s a rundown:… (see the schedule here)…

A full Civic Center spectacle will show what San Francisco looks like when the city funds communities instead of cuts. Community organizations, workers and residents will fill Civic Center Plaza with cultural performances, drag, dance, music, poetry, art-making, popular education, resource sharing, picnic blankets, banners, accessibility areas, pieces of the AIDS Quilt, and political theater calling on City Hall to restore the cuts. 10am, in front of City Hall… (more)

 

Posted on

Signature gatherers are out in force across S.F. Here’s why this year feels different

By Rachel Swan, Sara DiNatale : sfchronicle (audio)

In some parts of San Francisco, it’s virtually impossible to exit a grocery store without getting ambushed by people waving clipboards.

They are a familiar sight each election season, collecting signatures to put policy ideas before voters, lecturing anyone who will listen on why we need to fund buses or libraries, tax the rich and cut through the red tape. We’ve all heard versions of these speeches before, and we generally tolerate them, accepting ballot initiatives as an expression of the popular will. But this year the signature gatherers showed an unusual ferocity that crescendoed last week, when the state hit a suggested deadline for measures to qualify for November.

And still the gatherers refused to pack up. Now the focus has shifted to local and regional campaigns, including roughly a dozen would-be ballot measures circulating in San Francisco. People who wrap up petition drives in Southern California cities caravan to the Bay Area and quickly memorize scripts about the importance of bailing out BART and Muni, streamlining city contracts in San Francisco, and the proposed expansion of Mayor Daniel Lurie’s executive power. Voters can’t catch a break… (more)