What could possibly go wrong?

Banning traffic stops by SFPD could have unintended consequences

by Frank Noto

•••••••••• November 7, 2022 ••••••••••

The San Francisco Police Commission is proposing to reduce traffic enforcement by police. The result could be more traffic accidents, fewer arrests or citations, more shootings … and more crime.

You read that correctly – at a time when traffic accidents are soaring nationwide and San Franciscans' concern with crime is near an all-time high, some public officials want to effectively ignore certain offenses and further handicap law enforcement. After all, if you pay no attention to crime, it will just disappear, right?

The professed goal of the Commission proposal to limit traffic stops is to reduce racial bias in the discretionary enforcement of our traffic laws, surely a worthy goal. The change is designed to reduce racial disparities in stops and searches, and would curtail the use of pre-text stops (defined as traffic stops conducted in order to conduct a criminal investigation unrelated to the motorist's driving, and not for the purpose of enforcing the traffic code).

Supporters of their use sometimes justify pretest stops because they often result in arrests for other, more serious violations. Police reportedly find that drivers who blatantly ignore small laws like littering or missing license plates are also more likely to disregard laws pertaining to violence.

Under the proposal before the Police Commission, police would be unable to stop vehicles for most non-moving traffic violations. SFPD would be prohibited from enforcing many traffic regulations, including:

Failure to signal while turning

Broken headlights/taillights/brake lights

Expired license registration

Missing license plates

Tinted windows and other obstructions of vision;

Littering from a vehicle; and various other offenses. 

(There are exceptions, such as when the suspect is wanted in a murder or armed robbery, or there is a substantial likelihood of injury or death).

But there are worse problems associated with this policy change. These traffic violations may not sound like a big deal, but the unintended consequences on crime are worrying. How do police acquire evidence and investigate criminals who commit more serious crimes? Police often collect evidence of heinous crimes when they conduct a traffic stop and find probable cause or a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. They may also have a blanket right to conduct a search after encountering a parolee or offender on probation.   Or they may arrest violent or sex offenders on an outstanding warrant.

Many traffic stops result in seizures of and convictions for contraband – illegal weapons, supplies of drugs and drug paraphernalia, burglary tools, explosives, etc.—and crimes ranging from driving under the influence, robbery, murder and domestic violence. Why would some people object to such arrests? Is it perhaps that they don't actually want criminals arrested?

Defense attorneys typically complain that police arrest low-level dealers, arguing that the city should go after high-level suppliers instead. But police generally are unable to make such arrests up the drug cartel chain-of-command without collecting evidence from street dealers first.

Advocates of limits on traffic stops also typically want to prohibit officers from: 1) asking for consent to search; 2) asking questions about non-traffic crimes; 3) asking about probation/parole status; and 4) conducting probation/parole searches. Why do they take that position? 

Logic suggests that banning most traffic stops will lead to fewer arrests and more crime. But perhaps there are still valid reasons for opposing such enforcement? 

Some Police Commissioners and a coalition of more than 60 advocacy organizations point to statistics that show that people of color are cited more frequently for these traffic violations. Black drivers are both more likely to be detained and searched during a stop, and are less likely to be found with contraband, than white or Asian-American drivers.

One Public Policy Institute of California study found that during nighttime traffic stops (not specifically those under consideration by the Police Commission), Black drivers were found to have contraband in 19% of cases, compared with 25% for white drivers.

While advocates argue that these disparities are due to racial bias by police officers, the Institute says there could be other factors such as increased police presence in high crime areas, differences in traffic patterns, driving behaviors and vehicle conditions.

These researchers also employed the "veil of darkness" theory. It shows that racial disparities are only minimally impacted (2.2% decrease in stops for Black and Latino drivers) by the change to night lighting conditions, when police often cannot see skin color and racial features. Conversely, stops after the switch from dark to light increased by 1.4% (which is not statistically significant) to 2.0% for Black and Latino drivers. While these differences appear to show evidence of bias, they also indicate that such disparities based on race are minimal compared to advocates' claims.

So what are we to do? Suggestions to reduce racial disparities in stops range from:

Minimizing police interactions by mailing citations to the registered vehicle owners for infractions such as tinted windows or a broken taillight, rather than stopping vehicles.

Installing traffic cameras to cite drivers rather than using police to conduct traffic stops. (However, a Chicago study showed that use of "race-neutral" traffic cameras resulted in households in Black and Latino neighborhoods receiving tickets at twice the rate of white neighborhoods.)

Reducing costs for vehicle licenses and registration for lower-income drivers, which would probably make it more likely that law-abiding lower-income drivers have up-to-date registration/licenses, and thus reduce racial disparities due to poverty.

Continuing to conduct traffic stops, but seek to increase police diversity and train officers (implicit bias training) to avoid racial profiling. 

In my view, the first approach is not preferable. If a vehicle is not licensed, mailing citations won't work, and the owner of the vehicle might, justifiably in some cases, claim that they were not driving when the infraction occurred. While the traffic camera approach might increase the perception of fairness, it would require a change in state law in most cases, and the Chicago study indicates that this approach might create even greater racial disparities.

The third and fourth approaches outlined above are more promising, but not a panacea, since the former would address only a fraction of stops, and the results from data on bias training are mixed to date. However, statistical analysis appears to indicate that a diverse police force can have significant impact in reducing racial disparities, and San Francisco already has significantly increased diversity in the police force.

The Police Commission, in collaboration with the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, has established a working group to take feedback on its proposal from the public. So far, three working group sessions have been held, primarily in the Bayview, with no public meetings on the Westside. Does the Westside deserve to provide public feedback too? 

What do you think? Share your opinions with the Police Commission by writing to: sfpd.commission@sfgov.org. And consider copying the Mayor or your Supervisor, though they have limited influence over the Police Commission: MayorLondonBreed@sfgov.org and myrna.melgar@sfgov.org.

Frank Noto is president of Stop Crime SF, a victims rights group dedicated to preventing crime in San Francisco and giving victims a voice.

November 7, 2022

GUEST OP-ED

WHY I’M VOTING “NO” ON PROP. H 

I Oppose the Recall of Chesa Boudin

by D. M. Scott

Billionaires, tech moguls, and “law and order” advocates have tried to recall Chesa Boudin since he won the 2019 election for District Attorney and began his term in January 2020. I’m strongly opposed to the latest recall effort heavily financed by a Republican-leaning billionaire (a previous attempt failed to gain enough signatures for the ballot). Ditto the cheap red-baiting accompanying it.

I’m tired of deep pockets seeking to undermine democratic elections because they CAN, and to undermine the widely-recognized need to reform policing and the prison system, treat people who’ve committed crimes with dignity that every human being deserves, and level the playing field concerning arrests, pre-trial bail, and sentencing of people of color. For these reasons, I oppose the recall.

Chesa Boudin is one of a new breed of public prosecutors whose reform agenda goes against the grain of fear-mongering, amped up and lingering since the 2016 presidential election, and fed for the past two years by the pandemic. Fear – all around us -- is as contagious as disease, while a sense of safety requires community engagement, something harder to feel behind COVID’s heightened walls of isolation.

Those seeking to recall Boudin would have us believe he’s responsible for the statistical rise in crime that’s occurred since the pandemic, which coincided with his taking office. Research, however, suggests otherwise: that correlation doesn’t prove cause. As Susie Neilsen reported in the SF Chronicle (April 8), “While many in the city believe Boudin is responsible for changes in crime rates, for better and worse, research suggests district attorneys typically have little impact on the crime rate.” That is, there’s no evidence to support this claimed connection. Another reason I oppose the recall.

 Last year, researchers looked at crime rate trends in districts with progressive DA’s, in relation to crime rate trends in other places, and found no statistically significant difference between the districts since the progressive prosecutors took office. “The truth about crime trends in San Francisco is complex, and reported crime data does not clearly show a trend toward [reforms] worsening public safety,” Neilsen stated.

A rise in crime may well reflect other economic changes though: shut-down of the local economy, forcing people – and businesses – to seek government relief, or illegal ways of supporting themselves, while salaried employees remain stable, and billionaires watch their fortunes grow!    

Self-interest motivates those who’d recall Boudin: police unions and prison guard unions — whose budget shares depend on crime — and elected officials whose campaigns these unions help fund. (Likewise, some tech industry heads may feel threatened by Boudin’s launching an Economic Crimes Against Workers Unit to investigate wage theft resulting from classifying certain employees as independent contractors, and depriving them of health benefits and unemployment insurance.)   Recall supporters cling to the false cause-and-effect crime narrative and like to paint this reformer as “soft on crime.”

Yet, prosecution requires arrests that police reportedly are reticent to make if they won’t result in felony convictions with prison time. (Prop. 47, passed by voters in 2014, five years before Boudin took office, raised the dollar amount bar for felonies, and opened a window, retroactively, for sentence review of those serving time who had been convicted of lesser thefts.) The press mostly picks up on sensational incident stories and raw statistics. As someone committed to fact-based reporting and thoughtful analysis, I oppose the recall.

I’m in good company: Boudin has progressive unions standing behind him – including nurses, SEIU, teachers, hotel workers -- as well as the Democratic County Central Committee, the S.F. Chronicle, and ACLU of Northern California. The ACLU applauds his achievements which support its values. It opposes the recall because Boudin has implemented public safety policies that hold people accountable and reduce youth and adult incarceration, including:
— ending cash bail; creating a commission to review wrongful convictions; reducing the county jail population; expanding rigorous prison diversion programs; and committing to never charge children as adults. These changes address a legal system “that disproportionately punishes Black and Brown people,” it says.

The ACLU also applauds Boudin’s efforts since taking office to put violent police officers on trial when they break the law, including a police officer who assaulted an unarmed Black man with a baton, and another officer for homicide. It supports programs he’s initiated to house and transport survivors of domestic and sexual violence. And he’s blown the whistle on police misuse of rape kits to link survivors to unrelated crimes that discourages reporting of sexual assault. As a card-carrying member of the ACLU, I, too, support these initiatives and oppose the recall.

Additionally, I support “decarceration” – not the same as prison or police abolition. Decarceration encompasses government and community strategies to reduce incarceration and lower the number of people imprisoned and in pre-trial custody by diverting those committing non-violent misdemeanor crimes to programs that address their physical and mental health, rather than warehousing them at high daily cost to taxpayers. It aims to reallocate resources to community-based support of people with low-level criminal convictions so as to prevent recurrence, and to restore their civil rights.

Zack Norris, an Oakland-born, Harvard-educated attorney, and until very recently, director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, wrote a narrative- transforming book on the disparate racial impact of the criminal justice system, and alternatives to it that retain accountability. Its title: Defund Fear. Using actual stories and statistics, he describes how restorative justice -- bringing those who’ve committed crimes into relationship with those they’ve harmed, to face the destructive impact of their actions and negotiate restitution -- can turn lives of both around and help heal wounds of both the individuals and their families.

Ending the school-to-prison pipeline and strengthening communities of color torn apart by crime, family separation, and imprisonment, are goals that dovetail with diversion-to-appropriate treatment and mental health services initiatives like those being implemented by Chesa Boudin. As someone who experienced family separation first hand, he knows the pain of prison separation and the true value of community support.

I support Boudin’s insightful reform agenda – and want to see the resources saved through prison diversion invested in programs that educate, heal wounds, redirect lives, and preserve communities. Ample reasons to oppose Prop. H, say NO to the DA’s recall, and give this reformer’s agenda a chance.

D. M. Scott is an Outer Sunset resident, a freelance writer and former editor of Legal Services publications.

May 2022

Park Road Closures

Westside neighbors need access to both JFK Drive and the Great Highway

by Paul Kozakiewicz

T The actions of one city department head are further fraying the nerves of westside residents already battered by almost two years of COVID-19 pandemic; people who are just trying to shop, get to medical appointments, get their kids to school and visit friends and loved ones.

Phil Ginsburg, the general manager of the SF Recreation and Park Department, closed the Upper Great Highway (April 28, 2020), and a portion of Martin Luther King Jr. Drive and the eastern end of John F. Kennedy Dr. in Golden Gate Park to allow San Franciscans more space to recreate while our restaurants and almost everything else were closed. He has exclusive responsibility for the decision per the City Charter. (The Upper Great Highway was made a part of Golden Gate Park in 1870.)

Ginsburg has been working closely with two city non-profit organizations, the SF Bicycle Coalition and Walk SF, to develop and implement a strategy to ban cars on JFK Drive and the Upper Great Highway during the pandemic. Plans are being made make the bans permanent after the pandemic ends.

The Bicycle Coalition and Walk SF get city funding every year through the SF Municipal Transit Agency’s budget (Muni). The two organizations have sole source contracts, meaning no one else can bid for the City’s business.

General Manager Phil Ginsburg

Upper Great Highway Debacle

There has been very little discussion of the Upper Great Highway with the SF Recreation and Park Commissioners, which set policy and have oversight of the Rec. and Park Department. The commissioners have either been kept in the dark about the deleterious effects for westside residents or they are indifferent to the problems their department is causing. (The commissioners are familiar with the JFK Drive closure, however, as they are often bombarded at public meetings with public comments calling for the roadway to remain closed in an obviously concerted effort.)

At the outbreak of the pandemic in early 2020, Ginsburg shut down the Upper Great Highway (UGH) seven days a week.

On Aug. 5, 2021, as the City was starting to reopen, SF Mayor London Breed, with the support of supervisors Connie Chan and Gordon Mar, announced a “compromise” reopening of the roadway from Monday morning to Friday at noon.

According to a confidential source directly involved in discussions about the UGH, the reason the roadway was closed at noon on Friday was because Ginsburg couldn’t get anyone from Rec. and Park to lock the gate after that time.

Frustration for westside residents has been brewing, with a small group of bicyclists blocking traffic on the UGH during Thursday night commutes and the recent addition of food trucks on the highway on weekends.

Because of the continuing park road closures, a group of Sunset residents formed the Open the Great Highway Alliance to raise money for an attorney. On Dec. 15, 2021, the organization, on behalf of six plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court claiming Ginsburg overstepped his authority. They are demanding the UGH, parts of Martin Luther King Jr. Drive and the closed portion of JFK Drive be fully reopened.

Banning Vehicles in Golden Gate Park

The closure of the eastern end of JFK Drive is a hardship for families, seniors and people with disabilities trying to get to the de Young Museum, Academy of Sciences, Conservatory of Flowers and other park attractions. Attendance at the de Young and Academy of Sciences is about half of what it was pre-pandemic.

During the evening, the Conservatory of Flowers’ Winter Lights and nearby “neon trees” exhibits are on display. These are wonderful exhibits, but with JFK dark and mostly empty of people, it is a situation the police warn against – an “un-activated space” that is off limits to thousands of San Franciscans.

The Rec. and Park Department is working in tandem with the SF Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) to explore a permanent closure of JFK Drive. On Sept. 22, 2021, the departments issued a joint press release.

“Public feedback is critical to determining the post-pandemic future of JFK Drive and we are eager to hear your thoughts and experiences,” Ginsburg said. “Golden Gate Park belongs to everyone, so neither safety nor access can be an afterthought.” 

On the SF Rec. and Park Department’s website, “diversity” is touted as one of the great virtues of the current JFK Drive road closure.

I urge westside residents to visit JFK Drive to see how much diversity is on display. You won’t see many seniors, people with disabilities or people of color.

The closure of JFK Drive led SF Supervisor Shaman Walton to chime in, saying it was a “racist” plan that discriminates against African and Latinx Americans, who have few options to get to the park except by driving.

Rec. and Park claims, due to the closure of JFK Drive, that bus service has been improved to accommodate people of color.

“Transit service on the 44 O’Shaughnessy Muni line, which travels through the Music Concourse and serves the Bayview and Excelsior neighborhoods, was made faster and more efficient.”

According to Rec. and Park, attendance on JFK Drive has increased during the pandemic, saying: “Nearly seven million people walked, biked and rolled on car-free JFK Drive, a 36 percent increase over pre-pandemic usage.”
If the information was posted in November, that’s about 400,000 people a month using the roadway, or about 13,000 per day.

I have requested information from Rec. and Park concerning the department’s development and implementation of studies and polls and to identify those who conducted the independent and unbiased research. There was no response as of press time.   

Fortunately for San Franciscans, Ginsburg and the parks commission do not make a final decision on closing park roads. Once an end to the pandemic is declared, a vote by the SF Board of Supervisors and approval by the mayor would be required to change the City Charter. Or, a ballot measure could be put forth so city voters could once again decide the contentious issue. 

Over the years, city voters have rejected three ballot measures calling for a change to the City Charter to close JFK Drive. City residents realize limiting access to the park’s cultural institutions is not just; they realize you shouldn't have to walk or ride a bike to enjoy the park; and they know when they are being manipulated.

Ginsburg needs to fully reopen the park roadways as they were before the pandemic struck, and to respect the process by which change is created. He also needs to direct his department to be transparent and honest in its dealings with city residents.

For Ginsburg and his allies to exploit the people of the city of San Francisco during a pandemic to further their vision of a car-free utopia on the Upper Great Highway and in Golden Gate Park is indefensible.

Paul Kozakiewicz is an editor, and the former publisher, of the Richmond Review and Sunset Beacon newspapers.

January 2022

Here's why I support the SF School Board Recall

I'm a proud product of our public schools.

by John Trasvina

A record number of over eighty thousand parents and community members across every San Francisco neighborhood signed petitions to bring about the February 15 election to recall School Board members Alison Collins, Gabriela Lopez & Faauga Moliga. Like many of them, I am a proud product of our public schools. The teachers of Commodore Sloat, Aptos and Lowell provided me the education to achieve my dreams and have a career devoted to advancing justice, education and opportunity. Decisions and inattention by the current School Board members make that path more difficult for today’s children and families and jeopardize the future of our city. The dire situation facing us requires a new Board now to get us out of the budget crisis and select the next superintendent. We can not wait until 2023.

I echo Frederick Douglass' words that “Education is the key to freedom. ” Equal educational opportunity is the foundation for societal and economic advancement, particularly for newcomers and people on the margins of society. In an effort to take a shortcut to that achievement, the School Board unwisely voted to abandon Lowell’s academic admissions in favor of a lottery system. In the process, they ignored the voices of stakeholders and their own record of failing to prepare 8th graders, not just for Lowell but for any high school: According to school district data, just 57% of 8th graders meet or exceed grade level standards in English and just under 50% meet math standards. Through the recall, we can direct the School Board’s attention to academic preparation at the earliest grades.  

Thousands of San Franciscans have concluded that the School Board has abandoned the quest for academic excellence and is making no progress on achieving equality. Many families are leaving our public schools. San Francisco has a record high population but our public schools enroll barely half the number of students we had in 1965. Despite our high housing costs, many parents take on private school tuition. in order to provide for their children. Those who can't afford to leave have little choice but to remain. While San Francisco voters consistently support school bond measures, the School District has failed to provide oversight of the money, has difficulty explaining where and whether it was spent and we are left with school building conditions that are unsafe and ill suited for children or staff members. School board members have undermined the legitimacy and quality of public education in San Francisco.   

During the height of COVID-19, the School Board devoted greater attention to changing the names on the outside of school buildings than on accepting the Superintendent's recommendation for a safety coordinator to enable students and staff to return safely to those buildings. Their answer to the semester's long frustrations of distance learning was to offer all students  “A ” grades in every subject, until state school officials threatened to deny academic credit to the scheme. 

On the financial side, the School Board is presiding over a structural imbalance producing a $116 million deficit this year and even larger deficits in the future. State education officials have stepped in to take direct action after not receiving a fiscal stabilization plan requested since 2020 from the School District. On the same day the state admonished the Board for its failures, the Board voted to spend more money on attorneys in a failed attempt, already rejected by the San Francisco Superior Court, to tear down murals at Washington High School at a cost of up to $1 million. In December, only after much internal resistance and over the objection of Board President Lopez, the Board accepted a District proposal that will require a sustained path of difficult budget choices and decisions ahead. 

While a recall is a serious remedy, the damage to children's education is compounding daily. The time lost in the educational lifetimes of San Francisco students is too precious to wait to act. In your Voter Information Pamphlet produced by the Department of Elections, you will find past and present parents, students, teachers and administrators from Aptos, Lincoln, Lowell, Balboa and other schools providing their reasons to Vote Yes on the Recalls. You’ll receive your ballot around January 17 and can mail it in or leave it at specially designated ballot drop boxes to be placed by the Department of Elections at neighborhood sites.  Together, by recalling School Board Members Collins, Lopez and Moliga, we can restore faith in our public schools and lift up educational opportunities for all children. 

John Trasvina, an Ingleside native, graduated from Harvard College and Stanford Law School.  He served in the Clinton, Obama and Biden Administrations and is immediate past dean of University of San Francisco Law School and immediate past president of the Lowell Alumni Association.

December 22, 2021

Let's Get Serious about Community Policing.

It's Time to Engage SFPD's Community Police Advisory Boards (CPABs)

By Julie Pitta

With the aim of promoting greater engagement between the police and the people they serve, in 2009 the San Francisco Police Department borrowed an idea from Los Angeles. Modeled after a successful Los Angeles Police Department program, the SFPD established Community Police Advisory Boards (CPABs) in the City’s 10 police districts.

A Missed Opportunity for Greater Community-Police Cooperation

Among other things, the SFPD’s CPABs were designed to heal its long-troubled relationship between police and communities of color. According to the SFPD’s CPAB manual, “Diversity considerations should play a significant role in selecting [CPAB] members.” In addition to racial diversity, CPABs should reflect a district’s age, gender, ethnic, religious and socio-economic diversity as well as “diversity of thought.” They should not be “restricted to those who openly support the department.”

In 2016, after five Black and brown San Franciscans were killed by SFPD officers during the preceding 12 months, the U.S. Department of Justice was called in to review the department’s activities. The resulting report’s findings were not pretty: Nine out of the 11 victims killed by the SFPD between 2013 and 2016 were people of color. Included in the report were 274 recommendations for correcting SFPD problem with Black and brown residents.

Among those proposals was making greater use of CPABs which were called “a good practice” failing to meet their potential. “[They] could play a more active role in policing decisions and communicating the policing activities and goals to the larger community,” the report stated.

A year ago, California’s Department of Justice issued a follow-up to 2016’s landmark study. A mere 15 percent of the federal proposals had been instituted. Of those being disregarded, was the recommendation that the SFPD carve out a larger role for its CPABs.

CPAB information is hard to come by. SFPD stations rarely list CPAB members on their websites. (Obtaining the names of Richmond CPAB members required a public records request.) Minutes for the meetings are unavailable, an explicit violation of the SFPD’s CPAB guidelines.

Richmond's Mysterious CPAB

The Richmond Station’s CPAB meets monthly. Gaetano Caltagirone, the Richmond’s recently installed station captain, inherited a CPAB that is largely white, male and affluent—in short, everything the Richmond is not. Between 60 and 70 percent of the neighborhood’s 70,000 residents are renters. It is home to a large and diverse Asian population, and in recent years, has seen a dramatic increase in the number of Black and brown residents.

At the start of his tenure, Captain Caltagirone, though highly regarded, promised to review CPAB membership. Community activists called on him to make the body more representative of the neighborhood, and candidates who better reflect the Richmond’s rich diversity submitted their names for consideration. So far, Caltagirone has not done so.

Only one new member has been added since Caltagirone came to the station a little more than four months ago: Former District One Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer. A Chinese-American, the wife of a retired SFPD officer and a life-long Richmond resident, Fewer is an inspired choice. It should be noted Caltagirone opposed Fewer’s appointment, only relenting after he received pressure from police department higher-ups.

The Richmond’s CPAB still fails to adhere to the SFPD’s diversity guidelines. Typical of the Richmond CPAB is Mark Dietrich, who is white, male and owns a 3-bedroom, 2-bath home near the neighborhood’s affluent Lake Street corridor. Dietrich, a marketing director at The Gap, hosts an anti-burglary website urging Richmond residents to “fight back” against crime. Some residents felt encouraged to form a do-it-yourself neighborhood watch, an effort many feared would end badly.

The SFPD’s community arm, San Francisco Safety Awareness for All (SF SAFE) cautioned the approach and Richmond District Supervisor Connie Chan councelled circumspection.  “Pushing an idea that [Richmond residents] take matters into their own hands to ‘fight back’ against [crime]. . . is totally unacceptable, needs to stop immediately, and has the potential to lead to some very bad outcomes for the community,” wrote Kyra Worthy, SF SAFE’s executive director.

Added Chan: “The only way to ensure our neighbors are not misguided or misinformed, and most importantly not put themselves in the harm’s way due to false sense of security and misinformation, is to encourage our neighbors to work with our law enforcement agencies directly about their safety concerns. Please note,” Chan added, “I have alerted Chief Scott’s and his team regarding this situation so his team can find way to direct our neighbors and address their concerns.”

Community Goals

Richard Correia, the Richmond District’s station captain between 2008 to 2011, convened the neighborhood’s first CPAB in 2009. Today, he leads University of San Francisco’s prestigious Criminal Justice Leadership Institute. Correia said CPABs should include “anyone who wants to join in.”

“At their core, CPABs are an effort to get back to public safety as a shared responsibility between the community and the police,” Correia said. “To be effective the CPAB must be able to represent [and] to be aware of the needs of the larger community.”

San Francisco, like many cities, is being forced to reckon with its police department’s racist past. The CPABs are an important way for the SFPD to gain a greater understanding of City residents, particularly those who have often found themselves the target of racist police practices. To accomplish this laudable goal means that station captains must be transparent in their selection of CPAB members, must ensure that membership reflects that of their districts, and must not hesitate to remove members who are not serving the best interests of the community.

Julie Pitta is a neighborhood activist. You can email her here.

August 15, 2021

California Communities Are Bracing for Drought

Does This Mean We Should Panic in the Bay Area?

By Peter Drekmeier, Tuolumne River Trust

Listening to news about the current drought, one might wonder how long we have before we run out of water. Fortunately, for those of us who live in San Francisco and other communities served by Hetch Hetchy, we can rest a little easier than just about anyone else.

The SFPUC, which manages our water supply, has a lot of reservoir storage capacity. Hetch Hetchy makes up only a quarter of it, and at full storage, the SFPUC has enough water to last six years. Right now they’re sitting on enough water to last four-and-a-half years. That’s like driving with your gas tank three-quarters full – hardly time to panic.

Despite being in an enviable position, the SFPUC wants you to believe our water security is far from certain. They want you to support their lawsuits against the State Water Board. The Board is in the process of requiring more water to be left in the Tuolumne River – the source of Hetch Hetchy – to help restore the San Francisco Bay-Delta and rivers that feed it.

In an average year, the SFPUC is entitled to three times as much water as is needed, so if next year is close to average, all of their reservoirs will fill. The drought will be over, at least for San Francisco.

The reason the SFPUC has so much storage is because their Regional Water System was designed for demand that is twice what it is today. As a result of increased water use efficiency driven by greater awareness of the value of water and a tripling of its cost over the past decade, we’re using 30% less water today then we were 35 years ago, despite population growth.

85% of San Francisco’s water supply comes from the Tuolumne, a 149-mile-long river that begins 13,000 feet above sea level in Yosemite National Park. Water from the Tuolumne irrigates over 200,000 acres of agricultural farmland in Stanislaus County, feeding people all over the world. It also provides drinking water for 2.7 million people in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Where more than 100,000 salmon once spawned, barely 1,000 returned to the Tuolumne last year, impacting everything from insects that feed on their carcasses to orcas in the Pacific Ocean and the fishing community at Fisherman’s Wharf. It’s a disgrace the river that provides us with so much is worse off than any other in the Central Valley.

The SFPUC could do so much more to restore the Tuolumne, but Instead has produced a gloom and doom scenario that if more water is left in the river, we could face severe rationing. They inflate demand projections, assume hardly any recycled water will be brought online, and plan for an extremely conservative drought that is much worse than any over the past 1,100 years, based on tree-ring data.

In reality, rationing figures could be almost anything, depending on policy decisions. For example, at current demand the SFPUC could manage the worst drought on record (1987-92), with higher flows in the Tuolumne, without requiring any rationing or developing any new water supplies. By implementing reasonable rationing requirements and producing recycled water, we could extend our supply by another year or two.

In contrast, the SFPUC has manufactured a very different scenario. The “Design Drought” they use for planning purposes arbitrarily combines the 1987-92 drought with the driest two-year period on record (1976/77) to create an artificial 8.5-year mega-drought. To accommodate this scenario, rationing in the later years must be shifted into the earlier years, unnecessarily increasing rationing figures.

The SFPUC also has a long history of inflating demand projections. Just a few months ago they got caught trying to cook the books in their Urban Water Management Plan. When forced to use actual demand projections, potential rationing decreased by 27%.

The graph below demonstrates how SFPUC policies harm the Tuolumne. Any time there’s a drought, they starve the river, hoarding water behind dams just in case we were to experience the Design Drought. Between 2012 and 2016, only 12% of the Tuolumne’s natural flow was left in the river. When precipitation returned in 2016/17, their reservoirs filled quickly, and all the water we conserved during the drought had to be “dumped.” The Tuolumne experienced one good year at the expense of five terrible years. This pattern has repeated for decades.

Balancing our water needs with those of the environment is not rocket science. Here’s what needs to happen.

1) The SFPUC should conduct a science-based probability analysis to determine how long of a drought they should plan for (adding a buffer to accommodate uncertainties).

2) They should identify what went wrong with past demand projections (their numbers have been off by an average of 22% over the past two decades), and correct the problems so they’re working with realistic projections.

3) Once they have a better understanding of how much water might be available for human consumption, the SFPUC should determine how much alternative supply (such as recycled water) needs to be developed to fill the potential deficit.

The possibility of running out of water is small. The likelihood of California’s Central Valley salmon going extinct is high if we continue to divert unsustainable amounts of water from our rivers. It’s time for the SFPUC to abandon their lawsuits and become a leader in river stewardship.

Peter Drekmeier is the Policy Director of Tuolumne River Trust

JUNE 2021

A Crisis of Leadership

by Mitch Bull, Publisher

When asked, ten people will probably have ten different answers on what constitutes leadership. In many cases, leadership has been exhibited by elected officials under times of conflict, tragedy, or turmoil.

I am a journalist and have a strong opinion on the recent mishandling of the events following the SFPD leaked report on the details regarding Public Defender Jeff Adachi’s passing. I believe in fact checking, decency, and abhor the sensational publications that line our checkout stands in the supermarket. While I do not condone the leaking of the SFPD report, the right of the freelance journalist who received it to report it, or market it is protected by law, under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the “Shield Law” of the California Constitution.

The SFPD obtained a search warrant, sledge-hammered the door to the freelance reporter’s apartment, handcuffed him for six hours, and confiscated his notes, computers, and materials.

Unfortunately, this is just the latest example of the free press being treated as “enemies of the people” as we have heard from some of those in Washington, the Philippines and other places.

Mayor Breed backed her police chief, failing to condemn the raid, basically saying that she is not a legal expert, but if a judge issued a warrant, it must be OK. Police Chief Bill Scott also supported the raid as a tool to get to the truth about where the leaked report came from. Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer stated that the journalist broke the law by receiving an illegally leaked report (incorrect), and that since he is selling the information the raid is somehow justified.

Now, several weeks later, Chief Scott admits the raid was a mistake and that the SFPD must do better due diligence in its investigations. Are we really expected to believe that he was not involved at the very highest levels when the SFPD applied for a search warrant and conducted the raid, violating the California Constitution and the reporter’s civil rights? What about the Superior Court judges who signed off on the search warrants? Surely they have heard of the Shield Law.

The Mayor started waffling in her responses almost immediately, but has never condemned the actions of the SFPD in the raid. Supervisor Fewer continues to “blame” the journalist for making money on the story and also claims she is not a legal expert.

The Shield Law exists for the protection of journalists and the integrity of the free press, one of the cornerstones of democracy. Anyone who is old enough to remember Watergate; “Deep Throat” and the Washington Post knows that leaked confidential information is protected by law.

This is a crisis of leadership. All of our elected officials are sworn to protect the laws of the United States and California. The actions of the SFPD were clearly against the law, and the actions of our elected officials condoning these illegal actions is shameful.

Supervisors Peskin, Haney, Ronen, Brown and Stefani condemned the raid, as did District Attorney George Gascon. Even worse, ten days after the raid we have “no response” from several supervisors, including the President of the Board, Supervisor Norman Yee of District 7. No outrage, no concern for SFPD overreach? No comment on the trampling of free speech or civil rights? Nope, just crickets… still waiting for a comment.

This is not a “We made a mistake moment”, or “My Bad”. It is a violation of the California Constitution and a blatant attack on the press. All because someone in the SFPD (apparently) wanted to smear the memory and legacy of Jeff Adachi and the Public Defender’s Office.

The “duck and cover” mentality of those at the top is unacceptable. “I am not a legal expert” is a terrible excuse for violating the law. A clear lack of integrity and leadership is evident.

All citizens and voters within San Francisco should remember this when the next election for Supervisor, Mayor and Superior Court occur. I sure will.

Mitch Bull, Publisher, The Westside Observer, The Castro Courier

JUNE 2019

A Tragic Death on Woodside Avenue

Jose Carrasco relaxes with his two daughters

At the March 19 Health Commission meeting, Health Director Grant Colfax, MD announced the death of Laguna Honda Hospital (LHH) employee Jose Manuel Haros Carrasco.

On the afternoon of March 1st, the 37 year old LHH porter was struck by a vehicle while crossing near 255 Woodside Avenue alongside the southern border of the LHH campus. Haros Carrasco was rushed to SFGH but died 3 days later, leaving a bereaved wife and 3 children in South San Francisco. The Westside Observer requested and awaits the police report of the collision.

Though Haros Carrasco had only worked at LHH since June 2017, he was quickly promoted for his diligence in keeping the premises in “impeccable condition” and for his upbeat attitude. Recognized as “one of the hardest working; always on time and always doing the utmost quality work”, he “flashed a smile at every opportunity”, thereby spreading much-appreciated cheer within the LHH community. The Westside Observer extends its condolences to his grieving family and co-workers.

Following this tragic event, LHH supervisors reinforced safety tips to staff traveling to and from work. Representatives from San Francisco’s Vision Zero Task Force and the Municipal Transportation Agency visited the accident site to recommend street improvements that could prevent future injuries. The DPH Crisis Intervention Specialist Team has provided support to Haros Carrasco’s family.

Through March 2019, the City’s Vision Zero program recorded 10 traffic deaths, including 6 pedestrians. Among these was 14 year old student, Madlen Koteva, who died days after she was struck by a vehicle while crossing near the 600 block of John Muir Drive along Lake Merced on March 15th. Another 3 people died in freeway-related accidents, including one pedestrian. Despite SFMTA’s well-crafted Vision Zero Action Strategy, the 10 fatalities in just 3 months are alarming when compared to the 23 reported for all of 2018. Yet the stated goal is to reach 0 traffic deaths by 2024.

A Go Fund Me page has been set up to benefit his daughters.

MAY 2019

2019 James Madison Freedom of Information Award

The Society of Professional Journalists, Northern California Chapter, announced that the Westside Observer is the recipient of the 2019 James Madison Award in the Community News Media category. “The publication stands out among San Francisco’s neighborhood newspapers for fostering citizen journalism based on public records disclosures that shed light on city government and promote community engagement.” Publisher Mitch Bull thanked his intrepid team of reporters and the Editor for their commitment to San Francisco and their knowledgable efforts to hold City Hall accountable .

Please visit spjnorcal.org for information about past award winners. For additional information about the awards, winners, or awards dinner, please email the SPJ NorCal Freedom of Information Committee at spjnorcalfoi@gmail.com.

February 2019

An Apology from the Publisher:

In the March issue of the Westside Observer, we printed a story pertaining to the issue of housing in San Francisco, especially as related to Senate Bill 827, proposed by State Senator Scott Wiener, accompanied by a photograph of Senator Weiner participating in the Folsom Street Fair.

As the publisher of the newspaper I am ultimately responsible and I accept the input from the community groups (especially the LBGTQ community) that feels that it was a hit piece that promotes homophobia.  This was not our intent, as we are part of an inclusive community of journalists who strive to bring quality local news to the citizens of San Francisco, and value inclusivity of all of our citizens.

We failed to recognize the ramifications of our actions, and it was a very large lack of judgment on our part.

I cannot undo the hurt feelings that we have caused, or the black eye that we have given ourselves.  It does need to be noted that this error should in no way be attributable to the writer, or the large number of neighborhood groups and associations within the Westside of San Francisco, who welcome inclusivity.

I am extremely sorry about this and apologize to all citizens within the inclusive city of San Francisco, to the LBGTQ community and to our readers, our local community groups and advertisers who are our partners, and of course, Senator Wiener.

With this action, we failed all of you.  It will not happen again.

Sincerely,
Mitch Bull-Publisher

An Apology from the Editor

Friends - I am the editor of the Westside Observer and take full responsibility for the photos, headlines and captions that appear in both the online and hardcopy editions of the neighborhood newspaper. I chose the photo of Scott Wiener with the caption "State Senator Scott Wiener at the Folsom Street Fair.” I choose photos, the writers do not, though they may recommend or supply photos from time-to-time. While I try to choose photographs with the goal of attracting interest in articles, I regret that this choice may have detracted from the content.

I realize that I sometimes have a strange sense of humor and it does sometimes get the best of me. This is possibly from my background as a cartoonist. I hope that, if anyone was offended, that they will forgive me, and know that I appreciate any criticisms that will help make the Westside Observer a better product. Be sure to email me editor(at)westsideobserver.com immediately if you have a concern.

As a long-time gay activist, I certainly had no homophobic agenda in the choice of that particular photo, and I am sorry some may have interpreted it that way. I take it for granted that homophobia is a thing of the past. I have removed it from the website because I do not wish to detract, in any way, from the fairness and accuracy of Mr. Wooding’s observations.

Doug Comstock
Editor, Westside Observer

A Modest Proposal:

Televise Bond Oversight Meetings

A committee created in 2002 to oversee bond spending has an image problem: Few have heard of the Citizen’s General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee (CGOBOC), or know of the many duties with which CGOBOC is charged. Broadcasting CGOBOC’s meeting on the City’s Government Channel (SFGOV-TV, Channel 26) would go a long way toward clearing up its image problem, and provide greater transparency of this important committee overseeing taxpayer money.

The public has a right to know how San Francisco government officials are spending billions in bond funds.

SFGOV-TV broadcasts and archives all meetings of the Board of Supervisors and its five or more various sub-committees; meetings of 34 separate Boards and Commissions in the City, including the Police Commission, Ethics Commission, Fire Department Commission, Public Health Department Commission, Recreation and Parks Commission, Planning Commission, and Public Utilities Commission, among others; and broadcasts free publicity for the Mayor.

Why should CGOBOC be exempt from broadcasting its meetings?

In March 2002 voters passed Proposition F to create this nine-member bond oversight committee to monitor expenditures of general bond proceeds and ensure bond revenues are spent only in accordance with stated bond measure provisions. Prop F’s legal text stipulated CGOBOC could commission independent outside auditors to review bond expenditures, and if the Committee found that funds weren’t being spent for purposes approved by voters, it could prohibit sale of any remaining funds.

CGOBOC currently oversees 11 general obligation bonds totaling $3.6 billion, and has received $3.6 million (one-tenth of one percent) from bond proceeds to support its functions. As of March 23, 2017 CGOBOC had a $1.73 million current account balance.

In November 2003, voters approved Prop C to create a City Services Auditor (CSA) in the City Controller’s Office. The CSA function sought to ensure every City program and City department receives regular management and performance audits. The Controller’s statement in the 2003 voter guide indicated that based on the FY 2003–2004 budget, an additional $5.3 million would be set aside, in addition to the $3.2 million then budgeted for auditing and performance measurement, for a total of $8.5 million. CSA’s annual allocation — two-tenths of one percent of the City’s overall budget — is now $16.3 million in the current City budget.

What are we getting for that outlay? Every City program and department has not received performance and management audits from CSA in the 14 years since Prop C passed. About half of CSA’s audits have been compliance audits of City contracts. Virtually no comprehensive departmental or programmatic audits.

Prop C also expanded CGOBOC’s duties to serve as a Citizens Audit Review Board (CARB) to review audits CSA prepares, to ensure all audits meet requirements, and also requires that CGOBOC review complaints submitted to the Controller’s whistleblower program.

In October 2016 members of a loosely-knit group of accountability activists known as the Sunshine Posse, members of San Franciscans for Sunshine (veteran activists for open government), and members of Friends of Ethics began advocating that CGOBOC broadcast its meetings to increase transparency of its many oversight functions.

Change orders to bond-funded capital improvement projects have long been a problem CGOBOC has all but ignored. Change orders — various categories of changes to a project’s scope of work — lead directly to project cost overruns, construction delays, and higher project costs.

Back in 2010, CGOBOC’s then-chairperson, Abraham Simmons — a former member of San Francisco’s Civil Grand Jury — agreed CGOBOC should demand that the City Controller work closely with CGOBOC to develop a thorough and standardized change order management policy to supplement CGOBOC’s limited focus on just financial bond encumbrances and expenditures to prevent cost over-runs. Since then, CGOBOC has all but abandoned examining change orders.

Broadcasting and archiving CGOBOC’s meetings on SFGOV-TV is estimated to cost just $9,579 annually, a ridiculously modest 0.55% of CGOBOC’s $1.73 million current budget balance. That’s why this is characterized as a modest proposal.

At its January 2017 meeting, CGOBOC voted 3-to-2, plus one abstention, to approve broadcasting, two votes shy of the threshold, so the motion failed.

City Controller staff mistakenly told CGOBOC members in January that there was a “wait list” for agencies seeking to broadcast. But Kathleen Clark, Acting Deputy Communications Director at the Department of Technology, said “SFGOV-TV does not have a ‘wait list’ for coverage.”

Due to public comments submitted prior to its March 23 meeting, CGOBOC re-considered its decision, voting 7-to-1 to approve broadcasting and archiving its meetings, with the lone “No” vote cast by CGOBOC’s Chairperson, Brian Larkin.

One member who voted “No” in January changed his vote to “Yes” after he listened to audio tapes on CGOBOC’s web site and agreed the quality of the out-dated audio technology is terrible. The member who “Abstained” changed his vote to “Yes” after being chided during public comment.

Cultural anthropologist Margaret Meade’s famous dictum — “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever does.” — proved true in San Francisco on March 23.

When CGOBOC starts broadcasting and archiving its meetings, we’ll be watching.

April 2017

New Laws for 2017 –
How Aware are You?

With the New Year celebrations, the swearing-in of a new administration in Washington, and new local politicos, taking office, you, may have missed the advisement of all of the new laws that took effect on January 1.

What you may not know is how busy the California legislature was in 2016, and some of the new laws and statutes. The members of the State Assembly and State Senate sent a whopping 1059 pieces of legislation to Governor Jerry Brown's desk for signature in 2016. Of those, the Governor signed 898 bills into law, vetoed 159, and let two become law without his signature. While many of the laws are fairly esoteric or a small tweak to an existing measure, there are several that could have a big impact if you run "afoul" of them.

First and foremost is the new law regarding cellphone use while driving in a vehicle. While it has been against the law for several years to talk without using a hands-free device in your car, the new law (aimed at those who text) takes it one step farther: Californians are no longer allowed to use a handheld wireless telephone or wireless electronic device while driving, unless the device is mounted on the vehicle dashboard or windshield in a way that doesn't inhibit the driver's view of the road. Drivers are only allowed to activate or deactivate a feature or function on the device with a single swipe or tap and cannot do that while holding the device. Hold your phone in your lap and look down at the screen at your peril. The fines are high (exceeding $200) and are being strictly enforced, according to the CHP.

Senate Bill 491 also affect drivers as it prohibits them from wearing headsets, earplugs or ear buds in or over both ears while operating a vehicle or bicycle.

Another new law affecting you and your car is SB 838, which increases the vehicle registration fee from $43 to $53 beginning on April 1.

AB53, passed in 2015 but just now going into effect, requires that all children under the age of 2 be fastened into rear-facing child safety seats. There is an exception for children who weigh at least 40 pounds or are at least 40 inches tall. Children under the age of 8 are required to ride in the back seat.

SB3 raised the California minimum wage from $10 per hour to $10.50 per hour for all businesses that have over 26 employees. Of course it is already higher in San Francisco.

Per SB 819, alcohol in a powdered form (yes it does exist) is now illegal to possess, sell, manufacture or use. It includes powdered alcohol that can be combined with water or other liquids to be reconstituted, but does not cover "vaporized" alcohol. Speaking of alcohol, beginning on January 1, it is now legal for beauty salons and barbershops to serve free wine and beer to their clients until 10 PM.

Voter registration and mail-in balloting: AB1436, passed in 2012 but just now taking effect, allows people to register to vote on Election Day, with county election HQ serving as election hubs starting two weeks prior to Election Day. It allows for "conditional voter registration" which means the ballots aren't counted until officials verify that the voter is eligible and hasn't cast a ballot elsewhere. Current law cuts off voter registration 15 days prior to an election. SB450 also make casting a ballot much easier, as voters can now return mail-in ballots to any county elections office in the state, not just in the county that issued the ballot.

AB 1386 allows businesses to stock "EpiPens" in case there is a need to treat people suffering from life-threatening allergic reactions. The law allows pharmacies to give the devices to college, private businesses and other venues that have a plan in place for using them.

AB1732 requires that all single-user toilet facilities in any business or public place to be "all-gender" facilities.

Homeless students at Community Colleges: Under AB 1995, all community college campuses with shower facilities on campus must allow homeless students who are enrolled, paid, and in good standing to use the facilities. Another law, AB 1747, requires public and private institutions that offer food services to apply for a state-funded program that provides food for homeless students.

Assault Weapon law: Voters passed a law that will require all Californians who own gun magazines with more than 10 rounds to give them up, starting July 1. Buyers must undergo a background check before buying ammunition and will be barred from buying new weapons that have a "bullet button, " which were developed by manufacturers to circumvent the state's assault weapons ban. A bullet button allows a gun user to quickly dislodge the gun magazine using the tip of a bullet.

AB 30 bans the use of the name "Redskins" from all California public school sports teams.

Sexual assault clarification: A person who sexually assaults an unconscious or severely intoxicated person will become a crime that is ineligible for probation, under SB 2888.

Right-to-die legislation: Terminally ill patients in California will now be allowed to use experimental drugs, which do not have full regulatory approval, to decide when they want to end their lives. It authorizes, but does not require health plans to cover investigational drugs and protects physicians from disciplinary actions if they recommend them once other treatment options have been exhausted.

These are just a few of the 898 laws that were passed. To see more of the new legislation go onto the website of the State of California.

February 2017

Measure RR: Keep BART Safe and Reliable

By Phil Ting,Assemblymember, and Nick Josefowitz, BART Director

On your November 8 ballot, you have the opportunity to dramatically improve our regional transportation system. Measure RR is a $3.5 billion bond measure to keep BART safe and reliable after 44 years of operation. This funding will allow BART to replace over 90 miles of old rails, upgrade its 1960s train-control system, repair aging tunnels, update electrical power systems, and enhance existing stations. This will be the first time since its opening in 1972 that BART has asked the voters to fund major renewal of its essential infrastructure.

Measure RR is the culmination of years of work by a new generation of BART leadership committed to reinvesting in the core. These efforts began by securing funding to replace BART’s aging rail cars with new trains that will begin to be put into service early next year. BART has also transformed how it does maintenance, shifting from a system that simply reacted to malfunctions and urgent repairs to one that proactively repairs and upgrades equipment before problems occur. This has nearly doubled the number of miles each train car can travel before it experiences a breakdown, and has made BART the best subway system in the country in terms of portion of its fleet stuck in maintenance yards.

With the funding that Measure RR will provide, BART can take the vital next step in this turnaround. In addition to maintaining safety and reliability - these investments will allow BART to significantly increase capacity. Power upgrades and a modern train control system will allow BART faster and more frequent service, accommodating nearly 200,000 additional daily riders. This additional capacity is more than the daily ridership of Muni Metro and would represent the single largest increase in public transit capacity in the history of the Bay Area.

Many Westside residents do not have a BART station nearby, but BART is a critical piece of our Bay Area transportation system that helps everyone get to work. These fundamental infrastructure investments are essential even for those who don’t ride BART, such as Muni riders and car commuters. More congested streets and highways are what we see when BART is unreliable, or when it can’t keep pace with regional growth. For example, studies found that without BART, congestion on the Bay Area’s busiest highways would triple.

Measure RR investments will also generate deep environmental benefits. BART already has the lowest greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile of any major US rail system. Upgrading BART’s electrical infrastructure will allow more on-site solar power at BART stations and yards, helping BART deliver its commitment to go to 100% renewables by 2025. And increasing BART’s capacity is also one of the most cost effective tools to get drivers off the road, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and helping improve our air quality.Westside residents know as well as anyone the importance of clean air and livable streets that aren’t clogged by an endless procession of cars.

When BART works, we all benefit.

BART is at a critical moment. Without meaningful investment, declining reliability and capacity constraints will undermine our sustainability goals, increase roadway congestion, and disrupt access to jobs and services. On November 8, it’s time to take responsibility for our transportation infrastructure, and rebuild BART from the ground up. Please vote yes on Measure RR.

November 2016

PROP C: A Lot of Bang for the Bucks

By George Wooding, Peter Cohen

San Franciscans will have Proposition C before us on the November ballot. It is a very simple measure to allow already-approved bonds to be used for one of the City's most pressing issues of our day—preserving housing affordable for low and middle-income San Franciscans.

Proposition C would expand the eligible uses from the 1992 seismic safety bond for unreinforced masonry (ie, brick) buildings to also include the rehab of at-risk residential buildings, including wood-frame "soft story" seismic retrofits and other fire, safety and code upgrades, and in the process allow the buildings to be made permanently affordable. There are at-risk buildings scattered across the City, usually small mult-unit apartments like in the Mission, Castro, SoMa and Richmond, and along commercial streets.

With $260 million in remaining bond authorization, that could result in over a thousand homes brought up to safety and long-term affordability.

It is a lot of bang for the bucks, a smart investment for the City in maintaining the value of residential buildings as part of San Francisco's infrastructure.

And you might ask, what's the impact to Taxpayers from Proposition C? Nothing. Updating the 1992 bond would address today's housing needs without any increased costs to voters. No new bonding capacity would be created beyond what was previously authorized. Prop C also includes oversight and transparency provisions to ensure accountability.

Finally, as important, Prop C is an urgent anti-displacement initiative, funding the preservation of existing homes to provide stability for tenants at risk of evictions. Often these tenants are facing threat of Ellis Act evictions, which can be avoided if the buildings are acquired on the market and made permanently affordable housing for those residents and other low and middle-income tenants in the years ahead. Proposition C is an important step toward ensuring stability and housing for all.

Proposition C is endorsed by the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods and the San Francisco Neighborhood Network, and supported by Supervisor Yee and all other members of the Board of Supervisors, as well as the Mayor. Join us in making this great investment in housing!

Peter Cohen is the co-director of the Council of Community Housing Organizations, George Wooding is the President of the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods.

September 2016

Thank you Chief!

By John Farrell

First off, I do not personally know Police Chief Greg Suhr and was disheartened to read that he resigned. He was a year ahead of me at St. Ignatius but we never crossed each other's paths over the years to really get to know each other. I know people close to him, and know a lot of the rank and file. I have read about his career over the years through the newspapers and have always rooted for him.

As a native you grow up competing against other schools like Riordan, Sacred Heart, Lowell, Lincoln, to name a few, but as you get older you root for them as fellow San Franciscans, and wish them all the best because the City is the common bond we all have.

In my opinion, he is the first Police Chief hired over the last 20 years based on qualifications and not based primarily on race or gender. The prior chief was selected by our previous Mayor who was running for governor and needed the Hispanic vote. Do I have anything personal against this man? No. Was he qualified? Probably yes. Was he hired for the right reason? No. He wasn't hired for the best interest of the City but for the best interest of a political campaign. But what else is new.

That's why Chief Suhr was different. Whether you liked the Chief or not, which I do, I can tell you one thing, Greg Suhr would never sell out the City. And as Al Pacino said in the movie Scent of a Woman, "That is called integrity."

There are over 1700 police officers who protect our City every day. I thank you all for that. Just because a handful make bad judgment calls shouldn't overshadow all the positives. Keep in mind that we all have our differences, but we all bleed red, and we are all in this together. There isn't one organization in the world without a couple of bad eggs.

I will continue to root for Greg since I know his heart is in the right place. And that heart is in San Francisco.

John Farrell Broker/Realtor® – Farrell Real Estate, MBA, Former City Asst. Assessor-Budget/Special Projects, 5th Generation San Franciscan, Westside resident - farrellreinvestments@yahoo.com

Harvesting the Cannabis Taxes

With Governor Jerry Brown’s signatures on AB 266, AB 243 and SB 643, California took historic and progressive steps to collect taxes and provide a regulatory framework for California’s 20 year-old medicinal Cannabis Industry, bringing an underground economy out of the shadows.

Local control will be the basic component of the new regulations that state and county officials will now begin to consider in public meetings and legislative research.

The core effect of the new laws will be to strengthen the rights of local officials to levy taxes, regulate land use and zoning, and specify rules of cultivation and sales.

Despite the current federal administration’s hands-off policy toward marijuana, it is still classified as a Schedule I Controlled Substance and banks or credits unions face the threat of criminal prosecution if they provide banking services to medicinal (or recreational) cannabis operations. This remains true even if financial institutions follow the federal guidance of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued by the Justice Department and Treasury, as well as the money laundering provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970.

Job one: get Medicinal Cannabis Dispensaries (MCDs) banked. This is the first step because that would allow California to get back the taxes it is owed. In 2014, according to Fiona Ma, Member of the State Board of Equalization (SBOE), $28 million of sales tax was collected from licensed dispensaries—only about 35% of the MCDs in operation in the state. That leaves about $73 million uncollected from the Medical Cannabis Dispensaries that are not paying sales taxes.

During a Presidential election year it is unlikely that the federal government will address the conflict between federal and state laws. The state needs to step up and find a creative proposal to bank this well-established industry. Assemblymember Jim Wood, D-Healdsberg, has introduced AB 1549 to create a credit union within the SBOE. Keep an eye on this next year when the Legislature reconvenes.

California needs to provide leadership to resolve this legal roadblock. What this state adopts will force the federal government into action, let’s hope they get it right.

November 2015

Bad Apple Alert

The “Clean Power” ballot initiative many people encountered as signature gatherers circulated in the last few weeks is actually an effort by long-time opponents of clean power alternatives to assure that it will never happen. Many people who were duped into signing the petitions were assured that they were supporting clean power, public power or renewable energy. They may be surprised to learn that its restriction to 100% renewables would make obtaining commercial energy very nearly impossible in the real world—there is no such thing as 100% renewable power. A system without some fossil fuel capabilities or access will fail under high stress situations —proponents do not apply these restrictions to the current power monopoly.

If proponents of this measure wish to assure that the status quo continues unabated, why not just put the question on the ballot in a straightforward manner?

State law specifically prohibits “Willfully and knowingly circulating, publishing, or exhibiting any false statement or misrepresentation concerning the contents, purport or effect of any petition for the purpose of influencing any person to sign that petition.”

While it is too late to withdraw a name from a petition once it is in the validation process, citizens need a better way to file complaints when they have been mislead.

It’s Our Right and Our Duty to Petition

By Doug Comstock

As Californians we all have the power to make law. The initiative process gives us that power. It was adopted at the turn of the last century and it served to break the railroads’ monopoly at a time when elected politicians were firmly in the railroads’ pockets. Recent “citizen initiatives” — petitions by regular folks who have hit the streets to get signatures for various causes including saving our cable cars, raising the minimum wage, protecting neighborhood firehouses, limiting campaign contributions, bringing Sunshine to the backrooms of City Hall and stopping the growing height limits on the waterfront.

Now Supervisor Scott Wiener, another politician firmly placed among the powers that swing the purse, has taken it upon himself to “improve” the citizen initiative process. We’re not sure if he’s sore that his pet projects, like 8 Washington went down to ignominious defeat or that height limits on the waterfront were adopted — both via citizen initiative. Whatever it is, Supervisor Wiener wants to water down the process and make the signature gathering so difficult that only his wealthy special interests can participate, and ordinary citizens will have to go before the Board of Supervisors, hat in hand, to beg for the right to exercise their civic duty.

The City is changing fast, and monied interests are at the front of the line. The sway that highly capitalized campaigns have to persuade voters was very apparent in the last several elections. With local politicians dancing to the tunes that high priced lobbyists and contributors play it has never been more valuable to have the citizen initiative process available to solve the problems that elected officials refuse to confront.

As Quentin Kopp put it in last month’s Westside Observer column: “Wiener will undoubtedly persuade power-loving colleagues to present his anti-democratic measure to November 2015 voters; I invite all readers to join efforts to stop the silencing of voters by voting “No” on Wiener’s sly scheme this November.” This is important.

April 2015

City College—What’s all the Fighting About?

San Francisco is in danger of losing an irreplaceable asset, our 80 year-old college. Yet the problem is not the quality of its education; educational standards exceed the Accrediting Commission’s (ACCJC) requirements. Nor is the College in financial trouble, the duly elected Trustees—prior to their undemocratic replacement with a “Special Trustee”— left the college in the green, with a balanced budget.

So if it’s not the education or the finances, what is the problem?

The ACCJC’s beef with our community college is about data­—they want a top-down administration that concentrates on graduation numbers. This is needed, they contend, to deal with fiscal problems generated by students who do not graduate or transfer. They contend the state can no longer subsidize students who want or need to repeat a class. But their solution, “no repeatability,” is causing irreparable fiscal harm.

Since California community colleges began enforcing the “repeatability” regulations last fall, enrollment has fallen 17% at SF City College. While much of it is caused by the ACCJC, much can be ascribed to the rule. Teachers are scrambling to keep enough students to qualify classes, and many classes have closed, excellent teachers have given up, moving on to other colleges or professions. Especially hurt by this rule are seniors who enjoy taking an exercise class or any of the wonderful art classes, or immigrants who need to repeat basic skills or master English as second language (ESL). Where else can newcomers become acculturated? It is not easy for everyone.

Our formerly balanced budget cannot survive this newly imposed agenda.

Last month we asked our readers (Don’t Kick Grandma Out of Pottery Class) to sign the petition to reverse the repeatability rule and we appreciate the response. If you haven’t signed the petition, please do it now:

October 2014

Don't Kick Grandma Out of Pottery Class!

By Karina Morales

One of the biggest problems currently facing City College is declining student enrollment and its domino effect on funding. A big share of that problem comes, not from the City, but from Sacramento, led by one Barbara Bento, whose war on San Francisco’s City College is wreaking havoc that may be irreparable.

Using the rationale that “Budget cuts have forced us to ration education” the Board of Governors, who worry that “we are currently turning away hundreds of thousands of students from our campuses,” have issued a statewide blanket regulation, turning away thousands of students, causing classes to close, all while we are losing great teachers and endangering the financial health of the greatest community college in the state. “No repeatability of classes,” is the pinion regulation of the “Student Success Plan”.

The repeatability rule means professionals who took a class in Dreamweaver, version 3, now find they cannot return and take Dreamweaver in version 8; similarly InDesign, Illustrator, Photoshop, Excel, Word and many continually changing tech programs are no longer repeatable. What an incredibly ill conceived ruling, considering San Francisco has become home to several of the world’s most innovative technology producers. It is critical to keep current with technical advances, yet the college can no longer offer this valuable service to interested learners.

Many seniors have formed friendships and communities with fellow students. The rule against repeatability is devastating to seniors for whom ongoing class participation can mean the difference between years of isolation or association with like-minded friends. Gerontologists tell us social engagement is a key to healthy aging. Throwing Grandma out of the pottery class she loves is not the solution to the high cost of education.

The Governors want to privatize these ‘unnecessary’ classes — “join a gym,” or “take a private pottery class” is their solution. Now exercise and visual arts classes can only be taken once—aerobics, dance, music, painting, drawing; all the arts that need continual practice. Why not offer repeatability, so City College is fulfilling its mission of access to everyone? Students and faculty traveled to Sacramento and testified against the change.

Now, students who wish to take one class, repeat classes, pursue a certification, or transfer to four-year colleges and students who are not aiming for a degree — like our seniors — have been pushed out of classes in music, dance, exercise, and art classes. They may only be taken once. Who thinks that’s a good idea?

Reversing the repeatability ruling could return a lot of students, perhaps enough to fill the 23% enrollment decline. It is very shortsighted of the Governors to take this hard line against life-long learning, long a mission of City College.

Take a step — sign up for a class — join Trustee Anita Grier’s petition to restore repeatability here.

September 2014

Affirmative Action in Admissions: One Perspective

By John Lum

Recent articles and letters-to-the-editor in Bay Area newspapers concerning race as a factor in admissions to the University of California have lacked perceptive and depth. The major inference has been that most Asians, particularly Chinese, are against affirmative action.

It should be clarified from the start that racial consideration is only one kind of affirmative action. Asians have long borne the brunt of all other affirmative action tactics. They have complied with busing and diversity measures that have placed them away from their nearby schools into underperforming schools. They have endured much non-Asian on Asian violence during, traveling to and returning from those underperforming schools. They have complied with school assignment practices which required them to have higher grades and test scores to get into the schools of their choices, when that was a legal school district tactic. And now, they are meeting additional affirmative action admissions criteria developed by the University of California.

Proposition 209 forbids race as a factor in college admissions, among other places. In compliance, the University of California has instituted a number of affirmative action admissions initiatives that have given all races and ethnicities more equal footing in competing for acceptance. These initiatives have been staffed by well-trained diverse staff members at all levels of leadership who are sensitive to, and aware of, all the unique issues that students face at the schools they come from, public or private, performing or underperforming.

“Ideal” students are no longer those only with high grade point averages and test scores. Consideration is now given to how well students perform and rank within their individual schools relative to resources available there and in their communities. Consideration is given to those who take advantage of challenging courses and activities, both within their schools and outside of their schools. Consideration is given to those who have made great strides in overcoming adversities in their homes, schools, and communities. Consideration is given to those who demonstrate sustained participation and meaningful leadership. In a word, consideration is given to all those factors that impact upon students’ backgrounds, regardless of their ethnicities and schools, factors that they need to have resolved if they are to enter prepared at a university system that emphasizes research, the creating of new ideas, and social responsibility. Just getting a high GPA and scoring highly on standardized tests alone are no longer sufficient. Every student admitted must demonstrate a real potential to fulfill the high purposes of the University of California. By using the holistic considerations mentioned here, there is a leveling of the playing field without resorting to one’s skin color, which of itself reflects nothing. All of these considerations apply, regardless of the type of school one attends.

If race were to be authorized as a consideration for UC admissions, Asians and others, for once, cannot adjust, as they have done at all other times before. They cannot change their skin colors. Indeed, it is not far-fetched to say, in the case of SCA5 (Senate Constitutional Amendment 5), that using racial or ethnic preference for any one group is, at the same time, using it as anti-affirmative action against other groups.

We do not hear that the emergency unit of a public hospital has to stop serving emergency patients because it has reached, say, 10% of a particular racial group, and can therefore accept no more of that group until a parity of 90% of other racial groups are admitted. The qualification for acceptance is specialized medical need, not race or ethnicity.

We do not hear that a public library has to stop loaning out more than 10% of its books to that same particular racial group until 90% of other racial groups take out books. The qualification for loaning out books is the desire to read, not race or ethnicity.

We do not hear that Asians can qualify for welfare benefits if they have no income, but Hispanics cannot unless they have earned income of at least $10,000 first. The qualification for welfare type benefits is economic need, not race or ethnicity.

Similarly, the qualifications for entry into the University of California are well-defined levels of competencies and preparedness that all racial and ethnic groups, regardless of their backgrounds, can compete on a level playing field. All racial and ethnic groups have resources and opportunities, academic and social, within their own schools, homes, and communities of which they can take advantage to improve their standings in the eyes of the University of California.

The University of California continues to find and to address the debilitating conditions that different people face. Asians have and will continue to comply with UC’s affirmative action practices. To infer otherwise is a disservice to all.

John Lum is a concerned citizen.

May 2014

Prop 16-PG&E’s Public Option Perplex

You’ve got to hand it to the ad boys over on Beale Street. The day they realized they could not compete in the marketplace against cheaper community rates must have been a sobering moment. Seems PG&E’s monopoly is threatened by Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) in Marin and San Francisco counties. Since Sacramento’s SMUD continues to provide cheaper power to the capitol building itself and provides money for community welfare as well, the CCA competition has befuddled the PG&E lobbyists in Sacramento. They were unable to wine and dine the elected representatives to get their anti-competition legislation passed the old-fashioned way.

While PG&E can’t compete in the marketplace, they’ve proved they can outspend opponents at the ballot box. So, what they couldn’t accomplish in the domed halls of Sacramento, the bright guys in the caverns of Beale Street’s Madvertising Department seek to accomplish via a new multimillion-dollar campaign cloaked in the trappings of voter’s rights, to assure that their monopoly continues in perpetuity, the real purpose of Proposition 16.

In a way the initiative has underscored the “public option” fight in Washington, where well-paid lobbyists squelched public demand for an alternative solution to health care outside the insurance lobby. In California, led by the venerable ratepayers rights organization TURN (Toward Utility Rate Normalization) the right of ratepayers to buy cheaper (and usually greener) power known as Community Choice Aggregation survived the legislative process. Additionally, this PG&E funded initiative casts an unflattering light on the recent Supreme Court decision to allow corporations to maintain their stranglehold on the public by spending unlimited amounts of money in elections. Recent reports estimate that PG&E has spent $35 million for TV, mail and every other contrivance known to campaign consultants.

As a “Voters Rights” campaign, Prop 16 contradicts itself. The basic premise of “voters rights” is one man, one vote. By requiring a two-thirds majority Prop 16 seeks to impose the view of the minority of voters on the majority, rather than the majority rule usually associated with “voters rights.” Hundreds of junk-mailers touting “voters rights” will soon be in our mailboxes aiming to gloss over that disparity, but it remains a fatal flaw in the legislation. There are better ways to protect the minority than making permanent changes to the state’s constitution.

Community Choice Aggregation may or may not be the best alternative energy solution and we do not intend to tackle that complex question in this commentary. We think that is best left up to local governments assessing their available resources. Questions like this should be presented by elected officials at publicly noticed hearings, complete with public hearings that allow free flow of information from both sides and followed by a vote of representatives who will have to answer for their choice at the polls.

What is most troubling about this obviously misleading campaign is the misuse of the citizen initiative process. Originally conceived to break the railroad monopoly by the great Californian, Hiram Johnson, at a time when the Assembly and Senate of California were in the grip of the moneyed interests, the right of citizens outside the legislature to originate legislation is sacrosanct—too important to be interfered with. Proposition 16 seeks to establish a monopoly, not by citizens without access to their elected officials, but by a corporation seeking to prevent competition. Here a multi-billion dollar corporation clearly subverts the process, pouring $35 million into gathering signatures to place this initiative on the ballot, and to assure its passage.

PG&E should spend the millions they extract from the ratepayers to improve service and compete in the marketplace with alternative sources of energy, not at the ballot box. We join the Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, LA Times and most other newspapers in the state in questioning this unprecedented assault on voters. No on Proposition 16.

May 2010

Guest Editorial: Exclusive to the West of Twin Peaks Observer

JROTC in San Francisco Public Schools

By Dr. Dan Kelly

Vote No on Proposition V

Before phasing out JROTC, the School Board listened to students, parents and community members on both sides. It weighed the arguments and considered what might be lost and what might be gained. It learned that many students seek leadership and community service opportunities, and that they want electives and after school activities which confer skills that translate into careers later.

Students identified these qualities in numerous activities, such as Peer Resources, sports teams, outdoor education, student newspapers, activity clubs, Service Learning, Student Government, and others which already exist in the District without the drawbacks of JROTC. Eight hundred students petitioned the School Board to end JROTC and to use the $1,000,000 saved to expand and add to existing programs.

JROTC's contract with the School District requires a "course of military instruction" by instructors who don't need even a college degree. No JROTC classes meet State academic standards, and military skills translate poorly into real-world job skills. Lower skills mean lower prospects for the poor and minority students who are the primary targets of JROTC. But four years of military classes leave less room for the math, science, and foreign language classes, which do provide solid preparation for college and careers.

San Franciscans overwhelmingly opposed recruitment in schools when they passed Proposition I in 2005, so JROTC supporters now deny that JROTC recruits children locally, while admitting that it does so elsewhere. JROTC directives and policy statements urge instructors to "facilitate contact with recruiters", to "sell the Army story", and to contact students as early as possible. "Seventeen is too late", states one such directive. The Pentagon boasts that 40 – 50% of all JROTC cadets join the military. JROTC supporters continue to deny it. But the School District has no information on local enlistment and the supporters don't either. They simply haven't asked for real numbers from the Pentagon, the only agency that could know.

How voluntary is JROTC? Many students are forced into San Francisco JROTC for purely administrative reasons, or as punishment. Immigrants have been told to accept JROTC assignment to protect their families from deportation. Three quarters of those who chose JROTC said they wanted to avoid Physical Education, and half of JROTC cadets would take non-military marching band if offered.

Before it voted, the School Board also noted that JROTC instructors, who are chosen by the military, can't be openly gay; that JROTC creates funding imbalances between schools; and that JROTC instructors, who carry half the student load, receive much higher pay than credentialed teachers.

Last year the School Board ended involuntary placements in JROTC, and enrollment dropped 30%. This year it is allowing more substitutes for Physical Education, exploring band funding, and starting a new, four-year Leadership track. It is responding to what students want and need.

Proposition V is a divisive wedge issue placed on the ballot with funding from conservative groups outside SF, and outside the State. Students deserve greater opportunities without military sponsorship. Vote No on Proposition V.

Dr. Dan Kelly is a former School Board Member

JROTC School Board Decision

When ideology comes before students, students lose.

By Johnnie K. Wang

On June 26, the Board of Education called its second Special Meeting in two weeks to re-vote on a resolution that failed to pass during the first Special Meeting the week before. The Board chose to re-interpret its own procedures and precedent to guarantee a passing vote for this resolution. The meeting was scheduled on a short notice when both board members who support JROTC, Hydra Mendoza and Kim Shree-Maufas, were out of town. The public did not have a fair hearing. This underhanded political move not only hurt the students, their program, and the schools, but it significantly undermined what's left of the school board's reputation and will force them to reopen all 3-3 failed resolutions.

Eliminating P.E. credit for JROTC is fiscally and operationally a nightmare for our 7 high schools: Burton, Balboa, Lincoln, Lowell, Mission and Washington. Since freshmen and sophomores must take classes awarding PE credit, we are assured that PE classes will swell and JROTC enrollment will fall drastically. The very tight 2008-2009 school budget was approved without any room for extras. Schools are desperately trying to hire more P.E. teachers and figure out how to accommodate these extra students with existing school facilities.

Jill Wynns informed the Board that the school sites cannot accommodate more PE classes, especially at two of the largest high schools (Lincoln and Washington) which are under construction. The master schedule for next fall has been set and students have selected their schedule. Principals are away for the summer so nothing can happen until they come back in late August.

Next fall will be horrendous for students, principals and counselors given the elimination of P.E. credit for JROTC. There is no plan or extra budget to deal with this.

Some real programmatic issues for which parents and the community should be concerned:

The government also funds 50% of the instructors' salaries and 100% of the program expenses such as computers, drum corps instruments, field trips, uniforms, etc.

The Board has also turned its back on government funding. So what has the school board offered to replace this it? Not much. The current recommendation is an ethnic studies program that has yet to be developed and or piloted. And it only addresses a "during" school program. What about an after school program? There is no talk of it, let alone any money to fund it. Where are these students at the 7 high schools supposed to go after school?

Why is the school board targeting JRTOC when the cost is so high? The Board claims threats of lawsuits by Public Advocates but no "threat" has been filed nor has there been an intent to file. Is it purely politics? Is the Board catering to the anti-military progressive agenda, which many board members perceive as a springboard to higher office — even though the JROTC is only military by name.

The Board of Education has failed to fulfill their responsibility to the schools and to the community. Rather, they have chosen to follow a political ideology. The School Board should not be a stepping stone to higher office.

Nickle a Drink? Get Real.

Too little—too late!

Schwarzenegger's proposal to raise the alcohol tax a nickel a drink to help our flailing state budget displays a timidity that is out of character for a man who describes his detractors as "girly-men." Whatever happened to the tough guy we elected? It's a far cry from the current governor whose knees go all wobbly when it's time to stand up to Big Alcohol.

Last year the Marin Institute, the alcohol industry watchdog, proposed a quarter a drink tax increase which they estimated would raise an additional $3 billion to help lessen California's budget woes, a substantial improvement over Schwarzenegger's spineless proposal, which would fall far short of raising even a billion dollars.

The nickel a drink initiative was defeated at the ballot box back in 1990 because the liquor lobby spent $30 million to defeat it. Oddly enough, the most effective opposition came from the California Teachers Association, an unlikely source; its TV spots, paid for by the liquor lobby, somehow convinced voters that raising tax revenues from drinkers would be bad for children.

Not convinced that children would become victims, the legislature imposed a very small increase on gallons sold as a stop-gap measure, but inflation has long since mitigated that headway.

The Marin Institute estimates that alcohol related costs to taxpayers is well beyond $38 billion annually—for healthcare, criminal justice, and lost productivity.

While Schwarzenegger deserves some credit for recognizing that alcohol causes more than a few problems, and his proposal allocates the new funds specifically for alcohol-related programs, the alcohol industry should pay its fair share for the problems drinking causes.

We may have to listen respectfully as the liquor lobby whines about a tax increase, but it's hard to imagine anyone losing any sleep over it. At worst, raising the tax a quarter a drink may make drinking a bit more expensive, but compared to the taxes we impose on smoking, it is inconsequential. Besides, if drinkers have one drink less, wouldn't that be a good thing?

December 2008