Neighborhood revolt against parking meters

Nice work by Rigoberto Hernandez on Mission Local covering the revolt against the city's attempt to install thousands of parking meters in and around the Dogpatch and Portrero Hill neighborhoods:

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) agreed Monday night to assess people’s parking needs block by block in the Mission and other southeastern neighborhoods before installing any new parking meters. That marked a change in the agency’s attitude since a Jan. 13 meeting in which a hearing officer approved the installation of about 5,000 parking meters in several eastern neighborhoods despite the objections of hundreds of people who spoke unanimously in opposition to the proposal...

The rest of the story here

See also the Dogpatch Howler

Cindy Wu and the "female point of view"

David Chiu has appointed Cindy Wu to fill the Planning Commission seat vacated by Christina Olague. Wu is evidently a suitable replacement, since like Olague she shares the delusion about women and people of color: "I'm proud to bring a person of color's point of view and a female point of view and continue that from Christina."

Identity politics is alive and well here in Progressive Land. What does the "female point of view" really mean in politics? When Olague or Wu invoke this nonsense, they probably don't mean Ann Coulter, Margaret Thatcher, or Sarah Palin, but that doesn't make it any less nonsensical. With Olague's appointment as District 5 Supervisor, there are now four female supervisors. Exactly how has the voting record of the other three women reflected anything like a "female" perspective? Is there a female perspective on Muni or on development and planning? Of course not. In fact---and unfortunately---Olague and other women on the board agree with their male colleagues on all the important issues facing San Francisco. GroupThink as per The Family in San Francisco transcends gender and ethnic categories.

There are now four supervisors of Asian descent on the Board of Supervisors. As "people of color" in Wu's terminology, do they represent an oppressed group or a unique perspective on city issues?

Since Wu comes out of the Chinatown Community Development Center, where she did "outreach"---that is, PR---for the Central Subway boondoggle, does she agree with Rose Pak that Dennis Herrera and Aaron Peskin are racists for opposing the project?  

 

Olague replacement: The empty seat on the Planning Commission may soon be filled by Cindy Wu, a planner with the Chinatown Community Development Center.

Board of Supervisors President David Chiu will nominate Wu to replace Christina Olague, who recently stepped down from her position as commission president to become District Five's supervisor.

Wu is a community planning manager at the increasingly powerful neighborhood organization with ties to Mayor Ed Lee and power-broker Rose Pak. The center has strongly advocated for the Central Subway, which will connect Chinatown with the rest of the city.

Chiu is running for re-election this year in District Three, which includes Chinatown.

Wu has spent more than four years in her job, where she did outreach for the Central Subway and oversaw various Chinatown planning projects.

"I'm proud to bring a person of color's point of view and a female point of view and continue that from Christina," she told The Chronicle.

Wu holds a master's degree in city planning from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a bachelor's degree in architecture from UC Berkeley.

After the Rules Committee considers Wu's nomination next week, the Board of Supervisors will confirm or deny her.

- Stephanie Lee

The Myth of American Decline

From Robert Kagan's important article in The New Republic:

...Success in the past does not guarantee success in the future. But one thing does seem clear from the historical evidence: the American system, for all its often stultifying qualities, has also shown a greater capacity to adapt and recover from difficulties than many other nations, including its geopolitical competitors. This undoubtedly has something to do with the relative freedom of American society, which rewards innovators, often outside the existing power structure, for producing new ways of doing things; and with the relatively open political system of America, which allows movements to gain steam and to influence the behavior of the political establishment.

The American system is slow and clunky in part because the Founders designed it that way, with a federal structure, checks and balances, and a written Constitution and Bill of Rights—but the system also possesses a remarkable ability to undertake changes just when the steam kettle looks about to blow its lid. There are occasional “critical elections” that allow transformations to occur, providing new political solutions to old and apparently insoluble problems. Of course, there are no guarantees: the political system could not resolve the problem of slavery without war. But on many big issues throughout their history, Americans have found a way of achieving and implementing a national consensus.

When Paul Kennedy was marveling at the continuing success of the American superpower back in 2002, he noted that one of the main reasons had been the ability of Americans to overcome what had appeared to him in 1987 as an insoluble long-term economic crisis. American businessmen and politicians “reacted strongly to the debate about ‘decline’ by taking action: cutting costs, making companies leaner and meaner, investing in newer technologies, promoting a communications revolution, trimming government deficits, all of which helped to produce significant year-on-year advances in productivity.” It is possible to imagine that Americans may rise to this latest economic challenge as well...

The rest of the article here.

President Obama likes it.

Willie Brown and Jerry Brown: Development Democrats

Photo by Luke Thomas of Fog City Journal

What's increasingly clear about the high-speed rail project is that, as Martin Engel has been telling us, this project is not about the train; it's about the money---and the jobs that money will allegedly create. After all, even dumb projects can create a lot of jobs. The most important, steadfast supporters of the project are the leadership of the Democratic Party, including, alas, President Obama. Since he didn't mention high-speed rail in his State of the Union speech, apparently the president understands that the point is now moot, since obviously congress isn't going to give the project any more money.

But California Demcratic Party leaders are still on board, so to speak, including Governor Brown, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Mark Leno, Tom Ammiano, Scott Wiener, and Mayor Lee.

In a recent column in the Chronicle, Willie Brown provides a good example of what I call Development Democrats, the party leaders who consider the merits of projects a secondary consideration. The main thing is jobs for the unions, an important part of the party's base:

Gov. Jerry Brown is doing exactly what he should do with his call to go ahead with building the high-speed rail system: He's looking out for his legacy. You've got to do projects when you're governor, or mayor for that matter. The bigger the better. Jerry is trying to match his father, Pat Brown, who oversaw the building of the state highway network, the California Aqueduct and California's higher education system when he was governor. Jerry is thinking about what the John Kings of the world will say about him in 50 years. For me, there are few things more pleasing than having The Chronicle's peerless architecture writer praise projects I helped bring into being, such as the Giants' ballpark and Mission Bay. Nobody remembers all the things I screwed up, but they do remember the buildings. That's the legacy we politicians can show the Lord when we're trying to get into heaven.

If Governor Brown persists in pushing the high-speed rail project, his legacy will include support for the dumbest, most wasteful public works project in California's history.

Odd that Willie Brown mentions only the Giants' ballpark (a great success) and Mission Bay (jury still out) and not the Ferry Building, the City Hall makeover, and Union Square, all genuine successes done while he was mayor. Maybe those wonderful projects weren't big enough---and didn't create enough jobs---for a Development Democrat to brag about.

Odd too that he thinks the good opinion of John King---who likes Octavia Blvd, the Beth Shalom synagogue, and the "vision" of more highrises in downtown San Francisco---is something to be coveted. Among the important things Mayor Brown "screwed up": the homeless issue. He doesn't mention an important part of his "legacy": the Central Subway, the political deal disguised as an expensive, poorly-designed transportation project.

If the State of California goes ahead with the high-speed rail project, it will force the neglect of other important issues, like the $11 billion water bond that Governor Brown is now hoping to take off the ballot to clear the way for his proposed tax hikes.

And there's the "wall of debt" the state faces that will force cuts in other programs, including the public school system:  

Brown first used the "wall of debt" term last year in describing the accumulated borrowing that allowed lawmakers and past governors to claim they had balanced the budget. The largest piece of the wall is $10.4 billion in deferred payments to K-12 schools and community colleges. Deferred payments are those promised in one year but then paid in the next, even as schools are told to spend as if they actually had the money. The deferrals have continued year after year, and today schools are receiving about 20 percent less than they should, forcing districts to borrow, dip into reserves or spend even less. California also still owes more than $6 billion from traditional borrowing used to balance the budget under former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, along with other billions in internal borrowing and delayed payments to Medi-Cal, CalPERS and local governments for unpaid mandates, among other things...

...Still, making cuts like those proposed to the state's welfare program, which would reduce the amount of time most people receive aid from four years to two years, along with the proposed elimination of 71,000 subsidies for child care, would have a negative economic impact, said Jean Ross, executive director of the California Budget Project. The nonpartisan group advocates for low-income Californians.

President Obama didn't mention high-speed rail

President Obama didn't mention high-speed rail in last night's State of the Union speech, which means that he and Ray LaHood now admit that they won't get the money from Congress for the project. And the California State Auditor just issued a critical report on the project pointing out that the CHSRA can't explain why it's still counting on the federal government as its biggest source of money.

From a summary of the auditor's report:

The high-speed rail network's (program) overall financial situation has become increasingly risky.

The cost estimates for phase one increased to between $98.1 billion and $117.6 billion—of which approximately $12.5 billion has been secured. Although the Authority identifies the federal government as its largest potential funding source, the plan provides few details about how it expects to secure this money. The cost estimates do not include phase one's operating and maintenance costs, yet based on data in the plan these costs could total approximately $96.8 billion from 2025 through 2060. The accuracy of the Authority's estimates of the program's profits depends upon[sic] its ridership projections, which are fundamental to private investors' interest. An independent assessment of ridership projections was conducted by a handpicked group. The ridership review group presented several long-term concerns.

Thanks to the Community Coalition on High-Speed Rail for the link.

Court rejects city's vindictive cost claim

Recall that the City Attorney hit us with a cost claim of more than $52,000 after the court certified the city's EIR on the Bicycle Plan. We of course contested the claim, which was punitive and in retaliation for our successful litigation forcing the city to do an EIR on the Bicycle Plan. In a tentative ruling (below in italics) before tomorrow's hearing on the matter, Judge Kahn agrees with our objections, completely rejecting the city's claim.

Recall too that City Attorney Dennis Herrera admitted during his campaign for mayor that he advised the city to do an EIR on the Bicycle Plan before it was implemented on city streets. Herrera was overruled---probably by Mayor Newsom---and the city began implementing the Plan, which is when we asked the court for an injunction that was granted by Judge Warren. Even though he advised doing an EIR in the beginning, Herrera's department proceeded to wage a relentless, meritless, expensive, and ultimately futile legal battle to be allowed to implement the 500-page Bicycle Plan without any environmental review, culminating in the vindictive cost claim against us.

The entirety of the City's costs memorandum is stricken. The proceedings on the return are not separate and independent from the proceedings that led up to the return and thus the City is not entitled as a matter of right to costs because it is not a "prevailing party" as that phrase is defined in Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(a)(4). Assuming without deciding that the court has the authority to award costs in its discretion per section 1032(a)(4), the court declines to do so because petitioners were the prevailing party on the initial writ and petitioners elected to prepare the record on the return, and an award of costs is fundamentally unfair given that petitioners were never provided with paper copies and the City does not dispute that the electronic version had little or no utility. Moreover, an award of costs to the City under these circumstances could be viewed as having a deterrent effect on future CEQA petitioners, which is contrary to the enforcement provisions of CEQA, and the City's hourly rates for paralegal time appear to be significantly beyond the actual costs incurred by the City.

And earlier post on Herrera and the Bicycle Plan.

High-speed rail: A poison pill in Governor Brown's tax plan

Howard Jarvis and Jerry Brown in 1979

Governor Brown will be asking the state's voters to raise taxes on themselves to support, among other things, the high-speed rail project that recent polls show they now oppose (here and here). In fact almost two-thirds of the state's voters want another chance to vote on high-speed rail so that they can reject it.

The budget cuts are deep and painful:

In terms of sheer dollars, the steepest cuts affect the most vulnerable in the state, including a $1.7 billion cut to Medi-Cal, the state’s health insurance program for poor families and disabled people; a $1.5 billion reduction in its welfare-to-work program; and $750 million cut from the agency that provides services to those with developmental disabilities. The state’s higher education system---including the highly regarded University of California---would lose $1.4 billion.

People are apparently willing to pay higher taxes for schools---and maybe for programs for the poor and the disabled---but public opposition to high-speed rail could doom Governor Brown's proposed tax hikes in November.

Public resistance to phony planning process

Residents express outrage at planning meeting
Alan Wang
Wednesday, January 11, 2012

DUBLIN, Calif. (KGO)---In the next 25 years, it is estimated that two million more people will be living in the Bay Area. To accommodate them, a long-range, land-use and transportation plan is being launched.

In Dublin Wednesday night, officials were met by a rather angry crowd. The gathering was part of a series of meetings designed to get feedback on a project called "One Bay Area." The strategy is to get more people living near their jobs and mass transportation, which would reduce greenhouse gases. Opponents are calling this "social engineering."

One man stood up and said, "If we need stack and pack housing because there's a sufficient market for it that's willing to pay for it, it will get built without your intervention."

A growing opposition is forming against One Bay Area---an integrated land-use and transportation plan for the nine Bay Area counties.

"You are forcing the plan on these cities despite your pretty words about it not being forced, that they have a choice," said Castro Valley resident Mimi Steel.

There are 200 priority development areas, much of it planned for high density living that would rely on mass transit.

"You're going to make it harder for the middle class to use their cars, their cost of living is going to go up, and so how are people in the low-income going to move up, have upward mobility?" said Pleasanton resident Lydia Barrington.

The plan is led by the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. They say it's based on the changing demographics of the Bay Area.

"With the change and the preferences by young professionals, by new families, pursuing a more urban environment," said Miriam Chion, the principal planner in the Association of Bay Area Governments.

But the biggest issue these opponents have with the plan is the process. Many called it a sham because the public is left to make only minor decisions.

"All of the most important decisions on this subject have all been made. They've been made by big developers and high-density growth advocacy groups and we were not at the table when all of those decisions were made," said Berkeley resident Doug Buckwald.

The largest development calls for 24,000 housing units in Downtown San Francisco. The smallest is 20 units in Sonoma County.

Plan Bay Area is scheduled to be adopted in April of 2013...