Monday, November 19, 2007

The great "transit-justice coalition"

SF progressives are evidently desperate for something to celebrate. In the current edition of the Bay Guardian, Tim Redmond and Steve Jones indulge in an extended high-five session over the recent election results:

Indeed, the big story of this election was the improbable triumph of environmentalists over car culture and grassroots activism over downtown's money. The battleground was Muni reform measure Proposition A, which won handily, and the pro-parking Proposition H, which went down to resounding defeat. It was, in some ways, exactly the sort of broad-based coalition building and community organizing that the progressives will need to help set the city's agenda going into a year when control of the Board of Supervisors is up for grabs.

This is standard SF leftist rhetoric: a broad coalition of activists, environmentalists and labor is always supposedly poised to do something or other. The notion that passing Prop. A and defeating Prop. H was a big victory for the left is unconvincing, since only Supervisors McGoldrick and Sandoval among city progs---joining the city's Republican Party---opposed Prop. A, and their dissent was only about giving an unelected MTA board too much power. Lined up in support of Prop. A was every liberal group and remotely progressive political figure in the city, including SPUR, the SF Labor Council and other unions, the SF Democratic Party, the Sierra Club, the SF Bicycle Coalition, DA Kamala Harris, and Sheriff Mike Hennessey.

It was more or less the same story on Prop. H, which was opposed by many of the same folks who supported Prop. A, including the Sierra Club, the Bicycle Coalition, and Rescue Muni. But city lefties can hardly take much credit for defeating a measure that was also opposed by the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association's Board of Directors, the Noe Valley Merchants and Professional Association, the Hayes Valley Senior Care group, the Western Office of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Senior Action Network, and that well-known radical, State Senator Leland Yee. If Prop. H's opponents didn't have Don Fisher as a bogeyman, one suspects it might have passed.

Even so, according to Redmond and Jones, the A and H campaigns were "a watershed moment," because the labor unions were involved. Supervisor Peskin is quoted: "This would not have happened if it were not for our incredible brothers and sisters in the house of labor...This is the first time in the seven years that I've been on the Board of Supervisors where I've seen a true coaltion between labor and the environmental community." But the city's labor unions wouldn't have lifted a finger if Prop. A hadn't included more money for the Muni unions, even though labor and benefits already suck up 3/4 of Muni's $700 million budget. And of course there was nothing in Prop. A about reforming Muni's work rules.

Redmond and Jones do some comical contortions to interpret the Prop. A and Prop. H campaigns as a serious political challenge for Mayor Newsom:

Will Newsom continue to pay fealty to the biggest losers of this election, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and Fisher, who funded No on A–Yes on H and became this year's antienvironmentalism poster child? Or will Newsom — who has said little of substance about his plans for 2008 — step to the front of the transit-first parade and try to drive a wedge in the labor-environmentalist-progressive coalition that achieved this election's biggest come-from-behind victory?

In fact Mayor Newsom supported Prop. A and opposed Prop. H; his name was all over the campaign literature I got in the mail. And his relationship with labor is not antagonistic, especially after he walked the picket line with hotel workers early in his administration. Though one gets the impression that city progs wish it were otherwise, Mayor Newsom has also given the Bicycle Coalition and the bike nut community everything they have asked for in their ongoing campaign against cars, aka "Death Machines," as Steve Jones calls them.

But what about the future? What will the great "transit-justice" coalition do with all this alleged political power?

Some of the ideas floated by the group include banning cars on a portion of Market Street, having voters endorse bus rapid-transit plans and other mechanisms for moving transit quicker, levying taxes on parking and other auto-related activities to better fund Muni, and exempting bike, transit, and pedestrian projects from detailed and costly environmental studies (known as level of service, or LOS, reform to transportation planners). "There's a lot of potential to move this forward," Haaland said later. "We can talk about creating a real transit-justice coalition." There's also a downside to the low turnout: downtown can more easily place measures on the ballot or launch recall drives against sitting supervisors, which would force progressives to spend time and money playing defense. But overall, for an election that could have been a total train wreck for progressives, the high-profile victory and the new coalitions suggest that the movement is alive and well, despite Newsom's reelection.

Note that only at the end of this pep talk disguised as political analysis do Redmond/Jones even mention the low turnout or Newsom's easy re-election.

Even more noticeable by its absence is any mention of the defeat of Prop. E, Chris Daly's question time brainchild that would have required Mayor Newsom to attend a monthly dog-and-pony show at the Board of Supervisors. City voters were willing to try that idea last year but rejected it this year when progressives tried to make it mandatory.

More revealing still is the list of "ideas floated" by these Big Thinkers here in Progressive Land, which are nothing but more anti-car measures to make it as expensive and difficult as possible to drive in the city: banning cars on Market Street, bus rapid transit (BRT), raising taxes on parking, and, most important of all, level of service (LOS) "reform," which means eliminating the present requirement to study how long it takes traffic to get through intersections (aka "traffic jams"). A LOS study must now be done to measure a proposed project's potential effects on city traffic. The city's progressives want to "reform" LOS to death, so that they can then put bicycle lanes wherever they want regardless of how much that will screw up city traffic. City progressives who like to think they are environmentalists want to get rid of any environmental review when it comes to traffic in the city.

The agenda of the city's left is reduced to nothing but extending the city's current jihad against those who drive in the city to make it unnecessarily difficult and expensive.

The city's chronic affordable housing crisis is unmentioned, as is homelessness and the associated squalor on city streets.

Labels: , , , ,

4 Comments:

At 10:02 PM, Blogger John Spragge said...

Before the election, I believe you wrote:

By passing Prop. H and defeating Prop. A, city voters would send a clear message to the city's anti-car forces to back off.

If you believe that a vote for "A" and against "H" would endorse an auto-centric policy, then logically, those voters who actually turned up (and the voters who show up decide the election) at the very least declined to endorse an auto-centric planning policy. Which means that the voters in your city actually want a transportation mix less oriented to private automobiles and more oriented towards other choices.

 
At 9:54 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Yes, of course I disagree with city voters on Prop. A and Prop. H. The problem is that too many voters did not have the great advantage of reading my blog! Nevertheless, one persists in lighting a candle in the darkness! But the fact that the vote for Prop. A was hardly a landslide is encouraging, and of course there was the defeat of Prop. E, which disappointed city progs so much. And a vote for Muni---which is what people assumed they were voting for on Prop. A---is not a vote for the bicycle fantasy.

 
At 10:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem is that too many voters did not have the great advantage of reading my blog! Nevertheless, one persists in lighting a candle in the darkness!

Do you realize just how much of an egomaniacal, bloviating buffoon you come across as, or is that kind of cognitive dissonance merely a side effect of taking a conservative stance on political issues?

I wouldn't be surprised if you admitted to voting for Bush! ;)

Whatever, your just another NIMBY ruining SF for it's lifetime residents.

 
At 3:53 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

I was joking, Anon. No, I voted for Kerry. I've never voted for a Republican in my life. You not only have no sense of humor, but you have nothing substantive to say about the item you're supposedly commenting on. Typical SF prog.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home