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)