The Weekly Digest (March 19, 2023)
Happy Sunday, Brionies! Here’s what you need to know about San Francisco politics this week and beyond:
City Hall
Monday, March 20 at 1:30pm: Regular Meeting of the Land Use of Transportation Committee (agenda and call-in instructions here)
Item 3 – An ordinance to extend the COVID-19 eviction moratorium for yet another 60 days. Just like Governor Newsom, Supervisors Preston and Walton will probably still be talking 10 years from now about how we’re in a state of emergency and how they need to exercise extraordinary powers. Hail, Caesar!
Note: “The Chair intends to entertain a motion to refer this item to the full Board as a Committee Report for consideration on March 21, 2023.”
Tuesday, March 21 at 2pm: Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors (agenda and call-in instructions here)
Item 3 – An ordinance “Removing Construction Agreements from the Prohibition on Contracting in States with Certain Types of Discriminatory Laws.” Remember that news story from last year that revealed how our holier-than-thou Board of Supervisors had once again made San Francisco a laughing stock by virtue signaling its way into a boycott of most of the United States? Well, it turns out that either (a) economic realities can only be denied for so long, or (b) our progressive supervisors believe those icky people with backwards opinions in flyover country are literal fascists unless, uh, we can get a discount on construction materials from them, in which case let’s just forget about all that stuff we said before. I didn’t hear anyone say “fascist,” did you? This item was passed on first reading last week, and is expected to pass on second and final reading this Tuesday.
Item 5 – An ordinance to waive the prohibition on behested payments specifically for donations related to the opening and operation of drug consumption sites in San Francisco. This one’s a bit complicated.
In 2021, the Board passed legislation intended to prohibit a common form of municipal corruption: government officials awarding lucrative city contracts to businesses who made “donations” (i.e. behested payments) to those officials’ preferred “nonprofits.” Unsurprisingly, those donation funds would eventually find their way into the officials’ bank accounts, campaign war chests, or pet projects. Then, in June 2022, the progressive supervisors sponsored, and voters passed, Proposition E, which expanded the ban on behested payments to a broader array of entities doing business with the city. Prop E also made it so that any future amendments to the behested payments ordinance required both a majority vote of the Ethics Commission and a supermajority vote of the Board.
Many good governance organizations opposed Prop E, for a couple of relatively inside-baseball reasons. First, a large number of public works and civic institutions in San Francisco rely on aboveboard, good faith behested payments to make ends meet. But, second, behested payments also are/were the preferred flavor of corruption for San Francisco’s moderate Democrats. The prog faction does its corruption differently, which is why Prop E was seen by astute City Hall observers as less an anti-corruption measure and more as a way for the progs to disempower the mods. Needless to say, many anti-Prop E voter guides cited the first reason for their opposition, but not the second.
It looks now like Supervisors Ronen, Mandelman, Walton, and Dorsey (two progs, one mod, one meh) need to find a way to finance their deeply unpopular proposal to open drug consumption sites throughout the city, and the progs at least are perhaps regretting the zeal with which they pushed Prop E. As if the legal gray area in which drug consumption sites exist and the enormous litigation risk that they pose were not enough, the supervisors will now add to the mix this questionable “waiver” of an ordinance that set out very specific requirements for its amendment.
Happenings around town
4-Good Ventures presents a Conversation with Fmr. Ambassador Norm Eisen
Monday, March 20 at 4pm, online
Tuesday, March 21 at 6pm, The Commonwealth Club, 110 Embarcadero
SOAR presents Where Does the Money Go? Part 3 with Supervisor Connie Chan
Monday, March 27 at 6:30pm, Richmond Rec Center
What we’re reading
San Francisco is spending a lot of money to ensure the city is adequately policed amidst a staffing crisis. Now, debate has erupted over where to deploy those officers. The Board of Supervisors wisely approved the Mayor’s overtime budget proposal, but the long term answer is clear: Instead of relying on overtime and emergency measures to bridge personnel gaps, we need to fully staff the SFPD.
Speaking of policing, Supervisor Hillary Ronen – until recently one of San Francisco’s most vocal “defund” advocates – now insists the Mission needs more police (which, of course, it does). Life comes at you fast, indeed.
The Chronicle’s editorial board reminds us that our city’s bureaucratic quagmire isn’t just a problem of incompetence, but of corruption. Sounds like an argument conservatives have been making for years – welcome to the party.
The City still cannot pay its public school teachers. The solution? Give the faulty payroll system more money, of course.
The Board unanimously accepted a draft reparations plan for black residents. While the specifics of the plan are still up in the air, some of the more outlandish proposals have been making the rounds in national news.
City Journal offers an excellent analysis on the curious case of Gavin Newsom.
Thomas Hsieh served San Francisco for much of his life. He served on the Arts, Police, and Public Utilities Commissions. From 1986 to 1996, he served as a member of the Board of Supervisors. In 1991, he ran for mayor against Art Agnos on a fiscal conservative, pro-business platform. He placed fourth with about ten percent of the vote. Hsieh died on March 5, 2023 at the age of 91. May he rest in peace.
Take action