Sweet Melissa

Hogtied by The City’s set-asides

Mistermayor may not share the same orange complexion as our governor (who, let’s face it, now sports a hue somewhere between Irish setter and California poppy), but one important similarity between the two men is that they each are dealing with budgets that are hamstrung by well-meaning yet paralyzing voter-mandated set-asides.

As an aside: A set-aside is an amount of money or percentage of revenue that is legally required to be spent each year on a particular purpose.

“A $6.6 billion budget and we can’t afford nurses AND  police?” people rightfully lament. But we only have about $1 billion of that budget to pay for everything that is not protected by a set-aside. That $1 billion is also where any cuts have to come from. The budget for fiscal year 2009-10 anticipates a $438 million dollar shortfall. (Download Budget Letter.)

Obviously, something must be done about these legally required payouts that cause an all-out budget war about the table scraps each year. The problem is that set-asides fund childrens' programs, libraries, rainbows and puppies. What politician would risk being labeled a baby hater?

This issue reminds me of the way Congress has dealt with military-base closures. No one wanted to close a base in their own district, but they all knew it had to be done. In 1990, Congress created the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. Made up of experts and other nonpartisan nerds, the commission reviewed bases and made recommendations every few years. Those reports became law unless Congress rejected the entire report (it could not be amended).

Perhaps The City would benefit from such a commission, which could propose sunset clauses for some set-asides, roll back others a bit and generally try to free up money for basic city services so we don’t have to use a municipal bond to do something as simple as fix our roads.

Granted, any change to the City Charter would have to then be voted on by San Franciscans. But if people felt it was a fair deal to prevent tax increases and dangerous cuts to law enforcement and mental health services (not to mention constant attempts by other groups to get their own set-asides), it just might work.

Perhaps most importantly, it would allow our politicians to save face, while at the same time deal with an important structural problem. I’m open to other suggestions, but ultimately we don’t want to end up in an emergency situation like the state government, which is apparently at Threat Level Orange.

Listen to Daly — it’s too early to celebrate

Supervisor Chris Daly was right.

I may not always agree with his budget priorities, but after nine years on the Board of Supervisors, he knows a thing or two about the system.
 
Let us back up for a moment and look at how the budget process in San Francisco works. The mayor can neither affirmatively force spending on anything (this is important) nor reduce spending on anything. He can, however, completely veto any line item in the budget passed by supervisors.

So each year, the mayor proposes a budget that contains cuts and expenditures. Supervisors then demand that funding for some of the cuts be restored (this is the “add-back” process). Both sides talk tough, but in the end, the board basically has to fund all the things the mayor wants (otherwise the mayor can just veto their programs) and try to wrangle a little change from the mayor. Then, they pass the budget and pray that the mayor does not later veto those add-backs, citing unforeseen budget problems.

That brings me back to Daly.

Last week’s Budget and Finance Committee meeting started out as a big love-in about the $44 million in add-backs supervisors managed to achieve in negotiations with Mayor Gavin Newsom’s office. “You guys were so awesome!” “No, you!”

But while Supervisor John Avalos, chairman of the committee, was (literally) drinking Champagne, “Daly Downer” interjected that the $44 million in add-backs could easily be vetoed by Mistermayor in a few months.

To his credit, Avalos had a letter from the mayor saying no line-item vetoes will be made without consultation with the board. (Here's the letter: Download State budget letter 7.1.2009.) And Joe Arellano of the Mayor’s Office pointed out to me that Mistermayor postponed a number of emergency cuts last year because of concerns by supervisors and also made changes to the Muni budget based on negotiations with the board. He affirmed, “Mayor Newsom believes in working collaboratively with the board on the budget and the tough choices ahead for The City.”

The threat of vetoes and further cuts in general is serious this year because bad news from the state will soon arrive with a bang, not a whimper, and will mean changes to The City’s budget. Note that $7 million of the $44 million in add-backs was taken from a $25 million reserve set aside for dealing with state cuts. It’s hard to believe the add-backs will be immune from additional cuts.

And that’s why Daly wasn’t drinking Champagne last week. When the full board votes on the budget (complete with the fancy new add-backs) Tuesday, I humbly suggest that rum and rosaries would be more appropriate for the after party.

WEBSITE BONUS: One option for the Board is to put the funding for a some Mayoral priorities on "conditional reserve" - which means that the Budget and Finance Committee later have to vote to release the funds. At last Wednesday's meeting, Supervisor Mirkarimi proposed doing just that but got zero support from other members of the committee. (Though he supported Mirkarimi's proposal, Daly is not on the committee and therefore cold not vote. ) We'll see this discussed again at the July 14th meeting of the full board.

San Francisco's own stimulus package

November’s ballot continues to take shape, as the Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to lay the groundwork for a $368 million bond for road and sidewalk improvements. The proposed measure would be repaid over 20 years with property taxes. And because it’s a “general obligation” bond, it will need the approval of 66 percent of voters. (California Constitution, Art. 16, sec. 18(a).)

Supervisor Bevan Dufty figured: While we’re rooting around in the guts of our streets, we should put some utility wires underground. But his proposal to add $20 million to the measure for that purpose never made it out of the Budget and Finance Committee.

On Tuesday, the board approved a resolution declaring that approving the bond would be in the public interest (a necessary precursor to the official bond measure) by a vote of 9-2, with supervisors Michela Alioto-Pier and Sean Elsbernd voting no. (Here's the resolution: Download Street Bond.)

Here’s my dramatic interpretation of the debate (these are not quotes):

Elsbernd: This bond is basically saying: Streets are no longer a budget priority, so lets pile it on to the property-tax payers of The City. Last year, voters approved more than $1 billion in bonds — can we give citizens a break? Do we have to have a bond measure on every dang ballot?

Ed Riskin, director, Department of Public Works: In the past 20 years, The City’s pavement-condition index score has gone from 78 to 64 because streets have been neglected. We need to fix the Hall of Justice at 850 Bryant St., and there’s not enough general fund money to do that plus get our roads in order, so we need to put this in a bond.

Elsbernd: The resolution says this money is for road repairs. That is maintenance. Bonds are not supposed to be used for maintenance. Bonds are for humongous one-time expenditures like overhauling San Francisco General Hospital, which voters approved last year.

Riskin: If it makes you feel any better, we will still fix potholes and fill pavement cracks with general fund money.

Nani Coloretti, mayor’s budget director: Let me add that the state is cutting funds to The City, including the cash we get from the gas tax to take care of our streets.

Elsbernd: We don’t use the gas tax to resurface our streets like we are supposed to! We use it to clean our streets. If we used the money for its intended purpose, we wouldn’t be asking voters to approve yet another bond.

David Chiu, board president: First of all, Elsbernd is being a total killjoy. The board should get bonus points for working with Mistermayor’s office on this. Second, I want to point out that passing this bond won’t result in a tax increase (you just won’t see a decrease). Third, if we wait too long, our streets will be even more janky, which will make repairing them even more expensive. And you know what? In a year like this, when we’re talking about cutting services and stuff, we can’t prioritize street repairs as a general fund expense.

Elsbernd: We’re looking at an $85 million increase in retirement benefit costs this year, and a $40 million increase in the cost for health care benefits that The City has to pay. The reason there’s no money for streets is because we refuse to make difficult decisions.

Coloretti: This will create 2,600 jobs, too.

Riskin: Yeah, man. It’s about jobs.

QUOTES OF THE MEETING:

 “Those who are considering placing a parcel tax on the November ballot: You’re gonna go to the voters with a parcel tax and a general obligation bond at the same time? In this economy? Good luck.” — Supervisor Sean Elsbernd at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting, speaking out against a proposed $368 million bond for street improvements on the November ballot.

“If any of us had thought that Supervisor Elsbernd lost his edge becoming a parent, I think we were welcoming the moment when he tossed that microphone aside and stepped away with a look of disgust that we see on his face right now.” — Supervisor Bevan Dufty, commenting on new father Elsbernd’s vehement opposition to the proposed street bond, and Elsbernd’s signature “microphone toss.”

Bill Barnes is Back at the Board

The rumors are true: Bill Barnes will be Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier’s new legislative aide. Alioto-Pier told me so on Tuesday.

For those of you who have a life, allow me to explain the significance of this: Barnes used to work for Supervisor Chris Daly. And, while our local politicians would all be burned as witches for their liberal beliefs in other American cities, Daly and Alioto-Pier are on opposite sides of what passes for a political spectrum in San Francisco.

Daly is a leader in The City’s progressive movement who is well known for his affordable housing advocacy and general lack of shyness. Alioto-Pier’s name contains the word “Alioto.” Her district (District Two) includes the Marina and she almost always votes the same way as moderate Supervisors Sean Elsbernd and Carmen Chu.

(Barnes' bio here.)

Barnes was the campaign manager for Supervisor Chris Daly’s first successful bid to join the Board of Supes in 2000. He then immediately joined Daly’s staff where he served as a legislative aide until 2004.

(My dear friend/human encyclopedia reminded me that Barnes ran for District 5 Supe in 2004; he lost to Ross Mirkarimi.) In 2006, he worked as a legislative aide to then-Supervisor Fiona Ma and when she was elected to the State Assembly in 2006, he went to Sacramento to serve as her Chief of Staff.

He resigned that post in December 2008 and for the past few months has been working for San Francisco Firefighters Local 798 in their effort to prevent firehouse closures.

His recent gig with Local 798 plus him at odds with current progressives on the Board (including Daly) who want to take money from police and fire to stave off other cuts to social services. That, plus his new position with Alioto-Pier’s office will make for one very interesting “Welcome Back to City Hall” party in early July.

Halting Haight Head Shops

At Monday’s Land Use and Economic Development Committee meeting, Supervisors Sophie Maxwell, Eric Mar and David Chiu voted to send to the full Board an ordinance that would more severely curtail the sale of tobacco paraphernalia in the Haight.  (Here's the proposal: Download Tobacco Paraphernalia.)

Fed up with the number of “head shops” along Haight Street, last October Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi passed legislation requiring any new “tobacco paraphernalia establishment” along that street to get a Conditional Use permit - an arduous and public process whereby retailers have to prove to the Planning Commission that there’s a need for their particular shop.

One problem: the law defines “tobacco paraphernalia establishment” as any place that dedicates more than 15 percent of retail floor space to tobacco-related wares. (Planning Code sec. 790.123.) Why 15 percent? Why focus on floor space? Arbitrary rules like this are as good as a sign that says: “Let the Skirting Begin!”

And sure enough, hilarity ensued. Recently, some enterprising head shop retailer started selling tobacco tackle on Haight Street without a Conditional Use permit. How? The shelf where the tobacco doohickeys are sold only takes up 12 percent of the floor space - but stretches all the way to the ceiling. (This situation was explained at Monday's hearing.)

Mirkarimi’s new proposal does away with the 15 percent rule and now says that any new store that wants to sell any tobacco paraphernalia along Haight Street (upper and lower) has to get a permit. It will be heard by the full Board of Supervisors in the coming weeks where it will likely get 100 percent support.

Note: The (supremely dumb) 15 percent rule applies to all Commercial and Industrial districts in the City thanks to a law spearheaded by former Supervisor Sandoval. (Here's the law - it's almost 300 pages long: Download Tobacco Shop Limits.)

Permit-ment Issues

Honestly, I fall in love with San Francisco more and more each day. Every little thing she does is magic.

Case in point: At Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting, the board considered an ordinance proposed by Mistermayor that increases fees for certain permits. (Resolution here: Download Permit Fee Increase.) During the public comment period, two tattoo-parlor owners said they opposed the higher fees. Supervisor Chris Daly then asked that the measure be continued for a week.

Of course, the law itself does not say “tattoo parlor” anywhere, so I went to The City’s municipal code to see what these folks were talking about. And that’s where, in section 2.26 and 2.27 of the police code, I discovered wonderful information about the cost of permits in San Francisco:

Say you own a shooting gallery ($723) where you deal in firearms ($961) as part of your amusement park ($871) where people play ring-throwing games ($477) and see traveling shows ($680). One day after the rodeo show ($651), you decide to gather the junk people left laying around ($439 for residents, $370 for nonresidents) and sell it ($330) using a pushcart ($594). But despite your use of kite advertising ($367) and “public outcry sales” ($716), when customers don’t flock to your wares, you decide to make the cart into a motorized rickshaw ($268) and offer to escort funeral processions ($224) complete with an honorary cannon blast ($400). Along one of the routes you discover the perfect place for an off-heliport landing site which, at $477, is only slightly more expensive than an out-call massage service ($462). 

Here are the full charts: Download Permit Charts

It’s certainly not easy to be a business owner in The City.

At Monday’s Land Use and Economic Development Committee hearing, supervisors Carmen Chu, David Chiu and Sophie Maxwell heard testimony from several city departments on the subject of how to streamline the process of lawfully operating a small business in San Francisco. A Police Department officer explained that many of the above-mentioned permit categories do not really apply anymore to businesses in The City. Chiu seemed eager to eliminate those obsolete categories. And, while I wouldn’t necessarily call getting rid of all those crusty old spice jars in the pantry that I never use “streamlining” the cooking process, it certainly cannot hurt.

I (heart) Walter

Any of you who (okay, both of you) have ever tuned in to watch the public comments at a Board of Supervisors meeting have probably seen the “singing guy.” He frequently offers comments and is a genuine local treasure whose name is Walter Paulson.

 At Monday’s Land Use and Economic Development Committee meeting, supervisors Carmen Chu, David Chiu and Sophie Maxwell considered new legislation aimed at making it easier to punish those who own and run brothels under the guise of massage parlors. 

Here are the two ordinances: Download Massage Parlor Regulations, Download Massage Parlor Penalties.

Adding to the discussion of prostitution in San Francisco (and whether it’s safer for sex workers to be inside a parlor or on the street) was Walter with his remarkably apropos medley. First was a version of Patsy Cline’s “Walking”:

Go out walking after midnight, out in the full moonlight,
If you go out walkin’, searching on your job, you might find danger on the street there,
You gotta be careful like you used to do...

Next up was Johnny Cash’s “Ring of Fire”:

Don’t fall into a burning ring of fire, you’ll only go down and the flames will only go higher, And it burns, burns, burns, that ring of fire, that ring of fire...

Y’all can just use your imaginations on that second one. The law will be considered by the full board in the coming weeks. I’m sure Walter will be there, regaling us with his beloved serenades.

ONLINE BONUS: Here's the video!

Walter at June 8 Land Use Meeting from Melissa Griffin on Vimeo.

Ting Finds "His Issue" For Mayoral Campaign - But Probably Won't Be In Front Of Statewide Prop 13 Effort

It’s not that Mayoral Hopeful Phil “Tax Man” Ting does not believe that Proposition 13 needs to be reformed, because he certainly does. And he’s heading up a campaign to prove it.

It’s that one wonders (but only momentarily) exactly how much of an impact our city assessor will be able to have on this statewide issue.

By way of background, Prop. 13 is a ballot initiative passed in 1978 that limits property-tax increases to 2 percent of the original assessed amount of the property. It applies to commercial real estate and residential property. Since at least the 1990s, folks have been trying to reform Prop. 13 to eliminate or limit the protections on commercial real estate. This proposal, called “split roll,” has once again emerged amid the rubble of our state budget as a possible reform that would bring in revenue without hurting homeowners.

I’m sure you see how this debate goes — this state ain’t big enough for the both of us! Businesses will leave if they are taxed any further, and workers will leave if schools and services in the state continue to deteriorate. Prop. 13 is ripe for amending, eliminating or hanging in effigy at any statewide election in the near future, which brings me to my initial issue: Ting knows the ins and outs of revenue in San Francisco like no other, and changing Prop. 13 is a great rallying point for a tax assessor running for mayor, but it will take a statewide effort to change Prop. 13.

On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution endorsing the “split roll” approach to Prop. 13. (Here: Download Prop 13 Resolution.) That, plus Ting’s crusade, plus $693 will net you a permit for a skating rink.

Odds and Ends

"Misery Loves Passengers” and “Every Rider Left Behind” were two Muni slogan suggestions offered by a member of the public at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting.

And speaking of great slogans:

 Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s recent re-election slogan, “Bringing people together, getting things done,” just became funnier in light of the recent news that he is once again dating an L.A. reporter who covers local politics. (The new one is Lu Parker, the one in 2007 was Mirthala Salinas.) As his slogan suggests, this man is all about relationships and efficiency. Parker recently reported on the rumors that Villaraigosa will sit out of the governor’s race. What? No pillow talk?

And speaking of the governor’s race...

 On Saturday night, I did what most normal folks do: I combed through California candidate campaign contribution statements. Imagine my unbridled glee at seeing that someone named “Frank W. Chu” has given $199 to Mistermayor’s gubernatorial campaign! Is it our beloved 12 Galaxies Frank W. Chu? The zip code matches the one on Chu’s resume (yes, he has one - here: Download FWC_Resume), and his occupation is listed as “advertising.” It looks like Mayor Gavin Newsom is well on his way to getting the endorsement of all 8 billion galaxies.

And speaking of campaigns...

At 10 a.m. Saturday at the Columbia Park Boys and Girls Club, City Attorney Dennis Herrera will kick off his campaign for which of the following:

 a. Re-election as city attorney
b. Mayor of San Francisco
c. President of the Mesmerizing Blue Eyes Society
d. All of the above

The event is also a drive for supplies to support the club’s summer programs. The lesson for boys and girls in attendance: “Why you need to make sure you can still keep your old job before you tell everyone you’re really looking for a new job.”

And speaking of children...

Supervisor Sean Elsbernd and his wife, Jennifer, are expecting a baby boy to arrive next week. I’m told first children are often late, but if their son is anything like his dad, he’ll arrive right on time with a tiny briefcase in one hand. He’ll use the other hand to cut his own cord, then send a text message to hospital administration asking for a budget analyst report on the costs of his own delivery.

I (heart) David Campos

At first I chalked it up to the fact that he was an eager newcomer, but some five months later Supervisor David Campos is still vigilant as ever when it comes to city contracts.

See, there are a number of budget actions that require a vote by the Board of Supervisors. Waiving the competitive bidding process for a city contract and paying contract overruns are just two examples of the kind of measures the board votes on routinely. Often, such resolutions sail through with approval, but since Campos has joined the board it has been a whole new ball game.

Possessed with the unquenchable skepticism that is one of the least offensive side effects of a legal education, Campos wants to know: Why should we waive the bidding process? Why is this an emergency? Why did we not see this cost overrun coming? And while at times you can practically hear the other supervisors roll their eyes as Campos stands up to begin his cross-examination, I’m a fan.

For example, at Tuesday’s meeting he basically accused Office Depot of underbidding (at $9,999,999, right under the $10 million dollar threshold for board approval - sketchy!) on purpose to get The City office-supply contract, then ripping us off later with contract extensions that contain large cost increases. He requested that the next contract (bidding starts in about six months) make the vendor pay a 10 percent penalty for cost overruns.

I may not always agree with Campos’ politics, but he deserves credit for digging into each of these contractual duck bites that add up to huge costs for The City. He’s pretty much alone among supervisors in this crusade, but I’m watching the meeting with Red Bull in one hand, notebook in the other, scribbling “Thank You, David" on its pages.