With the exception of Mary Bono Mack, California's House delegation voted down party lines last week to revoke all federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Nominally, the move was to prevent federal funding from supporting the full range of legal, reproductive choices to which women are entitled. But thanks to the long-standing Hyde Amendment compromise, federal funds cannot fund abortion services anyways. And so this move -- which will not reduce the deficit and will eliminate jobs rather than create any -- is simply a direct attack on basic primary and preventive health care.
Let's be clear. At best, the rhetoric about reproductive choice used by opponents of Planned Parenthood is an excuse; an attractive smokescreen. This is a fundamental attack on basic health services for underserved communities of all kinds throughout the country. It's a revocation of access to basic breast, cervical and other cancer screenings, basic health exams, HIV testing, contraception and birth control for many millions of Americans- including an estimated 1.4 million who would be cut off from their health care by the Pence amendment.
California voters overwhelmingly passed the Three Strikes initiative in 1994 based on the promise that it would take repeat violent offenders off the streets.
But now, more than fifteen years after the initiative’s passage, we have the benefit of facts to help us understand the true impact of Three Strikes.
Most Californians already know that in the wake of Three Strikes the cost of corrections has soared. Our state prison budget is now so high that California spends as much on prisons as we do on higher education.
But many Californians are surprised to learn that, under Three Strikes, Curtis Wilkerson of Los Angeles was sentenced to life for petty theft of a pair of socks; that Shane Taylor of Tulare was sentenced to life for simple possession of 0.1 gram of methamphetamine; or that Greg Taylor of Los Angeles was sentenced to life for attempting to break into a soup kitchen to get something to eat.
In fact, the majority of those put away for life under Three Strikes – over 4,000 people total – committed a minor, non-violent third strike. These non-violent third strikers will, according to the California state auditor, cost the state at least $4.8 billion over the next 25 years – almost $200 million per year.
The people named above have an advantage that the vast majority of three strikers do not -- they are all clients of the Three Strikes Project at Stanford Law School’s Mills Legal Clinic. Under the direction of Project co-founder Michael Romano, Stanford law students have helped get a dozen non-violent third strikers released from prison after having their sentences reduced.
“Our clients are, in almost every circumstance, absolutely guilty. We’re not going into court and saying that they didn’t do it. What we’re saying is that the punishment that they received for this petty crime is disproportionate.”
This disproportionate punishment is unjust, and it is bankrupting our state. We are wasting precious resources to unnecessarily incarcerate minor offenders who pose little threat to society for huge periods of time – and draining resources away from the law enforcement agencies, community organizations and schools that can truly prevent crime and keep us safe.
Simply put, it is time to reform Three Strikes – so that it is focused on the serious and violent repeat offenders we all agree society must be protected from. Because Three Strikes was passed by a voter initiative, it can only be changed by initiative. In the past, Three Strikes was viewed as untouchable. But now, with the state facing fiscal catastrophe, and Romano and his students bringing attention to the unjust extremes of the law with each new client that gets released, there is momentum for change.
Romano thinks that there is another ingredient necessary for successful reform: political leadership. He says that “with a few notable exceptions, there has been very little leadership on this issue from our elected law enforcement leaders.”
Now is the time to show the leadership what it will take to return to sensible, cost-effective and fair criminal justice polices in California.
After spending my career working to identify and implement the most effective public safety strategies, I have seen one constant – the community is safest when the police and prosecutors earn and keep the public’s trust.
That’s why I read with real concern that the San Francisco District Attorney’s office would not produce reports related to officer-involved shootings pursuant to a recent public records request from NPR-affiliate KALW.
As a former Police Commissioner, I have been briefed in closed session on the details of officer-involved shootings. But the public knows very little about these incidents. My fellow Commissioners and I often heard complaints from community members about how little public information was released about officer-involved shootings. This lack of transparency breeds distrust.
In all officer-involved shootings, the DA’s office conducts an independent review to determine if there is criminal liability. If such liability is found, the DA presses charges, which are public. But when the DA determines that there is no liability, it is equally important that the DA publicly explain the reasons for its decision.
As such, the District Attorney’s office should issue a very detailed report on every officer-involved shooting in which it does not file charges and should make the report publicly available on its website. The report should detail the facts, the law and the reasons for the decision not to file charges.
This kind of complete transparency will make the job of our police and prosecutors much easier by building trust between law enforcement and the community – making it more likely that community members will work in partnership with police and prosecutors, and that victims and witnesses will come forward to testify.
San Francisco is lucky that we are served by rank and file police officers who are second to none. Publishing detailed reports that clear officers when they acted within the law can dispel public misconceptions about what actually happened.
Of course, officers’ privacy rights need to be respected and investigations cannot be compromised. But once an investigation is complete, and an officer has been cleared, it is imperative that the District Attorney’s office share its findings with the public.
This is the standard that is already being applied in communities throughout California. The District Attorney’s office in San Diego, hardly a bastion of liberalism, actually lists these cases on its website. Many other counties – including Los Angeles, Orange and Fresno – also make them matters of public record and available on request.
Building trust with the community is the key to enhancing public safety. Let’s not violate that trust by refusing to release documents that the public has the right to see.
David Onek is a Senior Fellow at the Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice, former Commissioner on the San Francisco Police Commission and candidate for San Francisco District Attorney.
I hope you'll indulge me a small personal privilege. If you hadn't heard, there were a few intentionally set fires in my neighborhood. Fortunately, everybody is safe. But, unfortunately, the residents of these units are now out of a place to live and have to basically start from scratch. (An ad for renter's insurance should probably go here.)
Anyway, a few friends of mine have put together a fundraiser to help the victims of the arson. It's going to be on February 15, 7-10 pm at the Lookout in San Francisco. You can get full details at the Facebook page.
The Netroots community has been allover of the story of California state Senator Leland Yee, who began receiving death threats after he demanded an apology from Rush Limbaugh, who delivered a rant on his show ridiculing individuals of Chinese descent.
Media Matters and diarists at Daily Kos deserve thanks for their coverage; our own recap of those events is available here.
Sadly, this story is growing uglier by the day - but now there's a new way you can help.
Senator Yee's office has reported receiving a new set of threatening letters, some of which bear crosshair graphics. Meanwhile, Limbaugh's supporters are flooding Senator Yee's office with hundreds of phone calls actually supporting Limbaugh's hateful remarks!
That means it's more important than ever to show Senator Yee and his staff that they're not alone - that we stand with Senator Yee as he stands against hate.
We've all heard the classic stories about the one-light towns out there that keep the books balanced by keeping the police busy writing tickets.
We don't usually think of these rural towns as models of a transparent and progressive administration. That's why we shouldn't adopt these kinds of "gotcha" revenue-generating tactics here in San Francisco by turning our entire city into a parking trap.
Unfortunately, just this past week the San Francisco's Municipal Transit Authority announced its plans to instruct our already hard-working traffic officers to increase the number of parking tickets they issue. The revenue from parking tickets - which MTA had projected to be right around $99 million - has fallen short. So now they are setting higher quotas to raise additional revenue.
We certainly do need more revenue in San Francisco. And one of the city agencies that needs additional funding the most is the Municipal Railway. But we need to make sure this new revenue is generated in a way that is fair to all and in a fashion that takes into account a person's ability to pay.
What's wrong with the new MTA parking ticket quotas is that they are the exact opposite - they are essentially a tax lottery, with the unlucky paying more than the lucky. They are unfair, with taxpayers fortunate enough to own garages (usually the wealthier homeowners) less affected than those who do not (usually the less-wealthy renters). And at their core, they are regressive, with the very poor paying just as much as the very rich.
As Assessor-Recorder in San Francisco, my job is to make sure we have a fair property tax system. And I have not been shy about taking on some powerful players - like big banks and other politically connected institutions when I thought they were not paying what they owed. Along with a number of others I have also helped form Close the Loophole - a statewide organization dedicated to reforming Proposition 13 so that commercial property owners start to pay their fair share.
These new revenue sources have several important things in common - they take into account the ability to pay and they are assessed in a predictable fashion. Property taxes, assessed fairly, are progressive in the truest sense because the more expensive the property the higher the revenue generated. And when a person buys or transfers property, they can predict what taxes they owe.
San Francisco has been seeing a healthy debate recently about progressive values. Let's extend this debate to discussing the many problems with regressive and random revenue generation.
We already have some of the nation's most expensive tickets. And pity to the person who has his or her car towed - the fees can quickly soar to $500 and above. I have been deeply involved in the movement to fight unfair foreclosures, and I know that $500 for many families is the difference between staying in their homes and eviction.
What has crept into this debate is some sense that people are to "blame" for driving and if they get tickets, then they simply should give up their cars or be more careful.
Certainly, we do not want to tolerate violations of our parking laws. And we do want to continue to pursue a city policy that draws people out of their cars with better public transit, smarter planning and walkable and bikeable streets. But enforcement should be based on safety - not new revenue. And, we need to understand that given the state of our Municipal Railway right now, some people simply must drive.
The parent with two kids at two different schools is going to have trouble on a bicycle. People with mobility issues sometimes need to drive. And most of us know others who have no other real choice - like the janitor who reports to work at 7:00PM. These San Franciscans deserve a tax system that is fair and progressive - not a random lottery that targets them to raise revenue.
Let's certainly raise more revenue. But let's do it in a way that reflects our progressive values - with a progressive tax system.
You can make the difference in two clicks. First, sign my petition to tell City Hall to tear up the unfair ticket plan. And second, join the movement I have been leading for nearly two years called Close the Loophole and let's fix what's broken in Proposition 13 and bring real solutions to San Francisco.
As we wait to see what sort of pain the Governor's budget will bring, San Francisco made some news again yesterday. Rather than appointing one of the political types that have been bandied about, Mayor/LG Newsom, always one for a bit of the dramatic, went for the unexpected by selecting SF Police Chief George Gascón.
Now, Gascón has been pretty popular in SF since he arrived about a year and a half ago, but his name was never really mentioned in connection with the DA gig. There are a number of reasons for that. While he did graduate from Western State University College of the Law, he has never really practiced law. Instead, he's been a full-time cop, moving up the ladder in the LAPD (and serving as the Chief of Mesa,AZ).
Now, while he may not have the trial experience of a Kamala Harris, it is clear that the DA of a county like SF rarely actually litigates cases anymore. Rather, the job is more strategic, and that is what Harris excelled in. And so it is no surprise that he chose to praise that ability of his predecessor:
At his swearing-in ceremony a few hours later, Gascón said he planned to continue many of Harris' programs.
There will be one distinct change, however. Unlike Harris, Gascón said he had no objection to seeking the death penalty in cases that warrant it.(SF Chronicle)
Of course, in a city like San Francisco, the death penalty is neither popular nor particularly easy to get. Kamala Harris just didn't have a whole lot of opportunities to attempt to get the death penalty even had she wanted to, and Gascón is going to learn a bit about those feelings as he enters his new found career in San Francisco politics.
Speaking of those political issues, no word on whether this presents any changed circumstances for other announced candidates. Current DA Administrator Paul Henderson and Boalt Hall criminal justice expert David Onek have already announced their candidacies. Former prosecutor Jim Hammer is also rumored to be interested.
Just a few minutes ago, City Administrator Ed Lee was selected as Interim Mayor for soon to depart (?) Gavin Newsom.
City Supervisors selected City Administrator Ed Lee as interim mayor, putting an end to a long and agonizing debate over who will replace outgoing Mayor Gavin Newsom.
While away in Hong Kong, Lee has been the center of media attention and political discussion since Tuesday when his name emerged as the leading candidate for interim mayor. (SF Weekly Blog)
The vote went down at 10-1, with outgoing D6 supervisor Chris Daly being the lone dissenter. Of that, Daly said:
I've seen go along to get along. If you want to do more than that, if you think there's a fundamental problem with the way things are in this world, then go along to get along doesn't do it. ([SFBG I've seen go along to get along. If you want to do more than that, if you think there's a fundamental problem with the way things are in this world, then go along to get along doesn't do it."])
In the end, a strong show of support organized by Chinatown power broker Rose Pak and former Mayor Willie Brown pushed this historic mayor over the top. Lee will become the first Asian-American Mayor of San Francisco, and will not be running for re-election. Apparently, part of the deal was that Lee would retain much of Newsom's staff for the duration of the term.
Not much is known about Lee, but he is said to be personally close with most of the supervisors. His politics are unclear, but one can expect a pretty steady hand from Newsom's administration.
While most people were fixated on the "Donkey Kong" mention in last night's speech by Chris Daly, what about the actual content of the speech? Immediately before Donkey Kong, Daly made his promise to Board President David Chiu: "I will haunt you. I will politically haunt you for the biggest fumble in history."
As Daly is termed out this week, can he make good on this promise? The answer is a yes, and big time. For three key reasons.
Chris Daly's Relationships: If you only read CW Nevius, you might be misinformed enough to come to the conclusion that Daly is a pariah in San Francisco. But in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Chris Daly is the most accomplished legislator on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors because he knows so many people so well that he can put together big deals, often with strange bedfellows. Tonight is the "roast" of Chris Daly, which will have as many downtown suits as SOMA hipsters. Daly can scroll through his cell phone and identify dozens of people he knows on each side of every issue. On every single issue, Daly can make Chiu's life miserable, but Daly also has the political instincts to identify the most critical pressure points.
Social Networking: Chris Daly's Facebook is an active community with 2,562 people that he has repeatedly used to create news that is picked up by the traditional press. Daly's twitter is only followed by 621 people right now, but that's mostly because Daly prefers Facebook. While those numbers may not sound huge, scroll through the names and you'll see a who's who of influence makers in San Francisco. Daly can change the framing and dynamics of issues before the Board, especially with early messaging. If he bought an ipad, he could easily post from behind the bar. That is some serious haunting potential.
Buck's Tavern: David Chiu should be haunted by the mere thought of Daly now having a watering hole so close to City Hall. No matter what issue, operatives on the other side of Chiu can stop by and drop info to Daly. The nature of San Francisco's political fissures means that in any given year, almost everyone in town will have an issue where they disagree with Chiu and agree with Daly. Plus, Daly opened the bar with Ted Strawser, who is a triple-threat with political game, online game, and event organizing mastery. Already, people are gravitating to Bucks as it fills the long vacant role of a City Hall bar. Drinking Liberally has already moved to Bucks -- it is rapidly turning into the place to go for politics in San Francisco. Plus, look at the geography. Two short blocks from Van Ness & Market. In District 6, but District 5 begins across the street and District 8 is two blocks away. District 9 starts less than a dozen blocks away and Chiu's District 3 is three stops away on the Muni underground or a dozen blocks up the hill on Van Ness. Location, location, location. There's a reason Willie Brown '99 and Matt Gonzalez '03 both ran their campaigns out of a building two blocks away.
Those are the three major givens and three huge reasons why Daly can haunt David Chiu. But he could also easily go further. I'd be surprised if Daly didn't consolidate his new watchdog role into an actual organization. He can raise far more money at the bar then it would cost for him to start a PAC, set up a website, and start building out his list.
Chris Daly can easily haunt David Chiu. And from what I've heard, it's On Like Donkey Kong!
We are about to witness the biggest fumble in the history of progressive politics in San Francisco and the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of David Chiu. I will haunt you. I will politically haunt you for the biggest fumble in history. It's on, like Donkey Kong."
- Supervisor Chris Daly, January 4, 2011 (Beyond Chron)
And thus the phrase "It's on like Donkey Kong" entered the San Francisco political lexicon. The whole story is somewhat (well, vastly) more complex. But let me outline what I've learned while being away, and the timeline as I see it. KQED and the SF Appeal have good wrap-ups.
1) The current Board, which leaves office on Saturday, tried to pass a declaration that the Mayor has left his job already, that he should have been inaugurated, and the procedure of a technical inauguration doesn't matter. They then pushed for the Sheriff Mike Henessey, who is pretty universally respected. However, being that this process is more about personal power politics than respect, things didn't go so smoothly. Henessey was only able to get 5 votes, rather than the required 6.
2) Bevan Dufty and Sophie Maxwell went to a closed-door meeting with Newsom, and thereby reversed their previous votes against City Administrator Ed Lee, and suddenly, the little known Lee had 7 votes. This includes the support of Eric Mar, one of the core bloc of progressive votes on the Board.
3) The Board was recessed after several Supervisors objected to the fact that they had neither spoken to Lee nor had the opportunity to talk to him, as he is currently in Hong Kong.
4) When the Board came back, that's when we get Daly's above quote about haunting Board President David Chiu's career. The episode, along with the fact that Lee is out of the country, were enough to get the vote delayed until Friday.
5) Oh, and as an added bonus, the incoming Board can change the interim Mayor at their discretion, so it is all seems a bit temporary.
It seems clear that Lee is willing to take the job, as long as he can get his old job back once the new Mayor is elected in November. A deal seems to be in place to retain most of Newsom's staff in a possible Lee administration. Lee's connections to Rose Pak (a Chinatown powerbroker) seem to tilt the balance of power in his direction, with her ties to both David Chiu and incoming D6 supervisor Jane Kim. The rumored other leg of this deal is the possible appointment of Chiu to the now vacant District Attorney's post that AG Kamala Harris recently left.
This works on many levels for Newsom. First, it gets a relative moderate to keep the seat warm until November, which was really Newsom's main goal. But as an added bonus, Ed Lee becomes the first Asian-American Mayor of San Francisco, and takes that potential honor away from Sen. Leland Yee.
But, being that Maxwell joined the 5 member progressive core to stall the vote until Friday, there is a lot of wiggle room here. The SFBG's Tim Redmond sees the big problem with Lee being that we just don't really know where he stands. Perhaps more information about that comes out today and tomorrow in time for the Friday vote, or perhaps this is all pushed to the new Board. Either way, this just seems to be San Francisco political theater taken to a new level.
I'll admit, San Francisco is a pretty hard city to leave. On several occasions, I've made the decision to stay in town. Yet, then again, I didn't run for statewide office, while Gavin Newsom did. However, while all of the other statewide officers are being sworn in on Monday, he is going to wait until he's good and ready:
Mayor Gavin Newsom left Tuesday morning with wife Jennifer and daughter Montana to Los Cabos, Mexico, and will return from vacation Saturday. But he won't spend the weekend packing up for Sacramento - looks like he'll be here well beyond his lieutenant governor's Monday start date.
"He's going to leave at some point," assured Newsom's spokesman, Tony Winnicker. "He will assume the office of lieutenant governor in January."
Of course, there's the big reason that he wants the new Board of Supervisors, to be sworn in Jan. 8, to pick his replacement. But there are also a lot of loose ends to tie up - and Newsom, busy burnishing his legacy, wants full credit. {SF Gate)
Of course, some of those loose ends are in fact something of a big deal. However, I leave up to your judgment on whether it is a good idea or not to just cool your heels, and let the state linger. To me, it seems a bit bizarre. After all, he fought for the past couple of years to get out of SF for Sacramento, but now he can't seem to quit us.
As an aside, but the CW has the Mayor's race down to Board President David Chiu and SFPUC General Manager Ed Harrington at this point. I'm not entirely convinced that this delay really changes the calculus all that much, but there will likely be some machinations that could end up suprising the entire political community in San Francisco. Perhaps, Mayor Newsom has some play left up his sleeve worthy of the Triple Play.
California will release an unprecedented number of prisoners back to their communities in the coming year, prodded by both the state budget crisis and the federal courts.
But those returning will be far less prepared to successfully re-enter society - due to severe cuts to rehabilitation programs in prison - and will be returning to counties that are far less prepared to assist them - due to massive budget deficits at the county level.
Many are concerned that this will lead to an increase in California's already astronomical recidivism rate of 70%, costing the state even more in corrections spending and leading to further victimization in our communities.
What to do?
A new report by the Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice (BCCJ) points to a proven solution that will decrease recidivism and enhance public safety with significant cost savings to the state: increasing employment opportunities for people with prior convictions.
As BCCJ's Founding Executive Director, I was privileged to convene the wide-ranging project advisory board that developed the report's timely recommendations. The group consisted of an extremely diverse group of "unlikely allies" - with representatives from law enforcement, advocacy groups, employers, and other stakeholders from across the political spectrum and from all corners of the state. As advisory board member and East Palo Alto Police Chief Ron Davis recently said: "It was just an outstanding group, and it opened my eyes: it really showed me that even with the diverse group that was there, law enforcement to prosecutors to advocates for the formerly incarcerated, how closely aligned we were."
The BCCJ report points to solutions as simple as providing a California ID card to everyone leaving prison - a prerequisite for applying for most jobs. This low-cost measure has been passed by the legislature but was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. Governor-Elect Jerry Brown would be wise to call for and sign a new bill.
Other solutions do cost some money in the short run - but save many times that in the long run. Investing in prison vocational education programs has proven to save money: the Washington State Institute for Public Policy found that every dollar invested netted nearly twelve dollars in return. But California has gone in the opposite direction, cutting vocational education and other rehabilitation programs in prison by $250 million - close to half of the total rehabilitation budget. Governor-Elect Brown has said he wants to avoid quick fixes and budget gimmicks that save money in one fiscal year only to cost the state much more down the line. That's exactly what these recent cuts have done. Governor-Elect Brown should increase spending on vocational education and related programs and can count on future corrections savings as a result.
At the county level, the BCCJ report calls for the development of re-entry councils such as those begun in San Diego under the leadership of District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, a BCCJ project advisory board member, and in San Francisco under the leadership of Attorney General-elect Kamala Harris and others, to better coordinate re-entry services at the local level. The councils cost little but can have a big impact.
Simply put, a small investment in helping formerly incarcerated people find jobs will have a huge payoff in reduced corrections costs, reduced recidivism and reduced crime in our communities.
As the BCCJ report shows, law enforcement leaders, advocates, and enlightened employers all understand this. Here's hoping that our new Governor does too.
__
David Onek is a Senior Fellow at the Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice, Host of the Criminal Justice Conversations Podcast, and a former Commissioner on the San Francisco Police Commission.
By now, you may have heard that much of San Francisco's political leadership is moving on up in about a month or so. But just how San Francisco moves on from Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris (note: I worked on her campaign, but I have no inside details on this) is still up in the air. The Wall Street Journal has something of a primer on the issues. It's a decent enough start, portraying the various scenarios. For a more entertaining take, watch the Necessary Conversation video on your right. But as somebody who is pretty involved in local politics, these are the decision points, as it were, that I see:
1) When will Gavin Newsom switch gigs?
Officially, Abel Maldonado's term ends on January 3, like all other statewide officers. And that is the date that Gavin Newsom is supposed to be sworn in as LG. However, he is trying to push back that date a few days in order to get his replacement selected by the new Board of Supervisors that is sworn in on Jan 7.
Of course, if he is able to push back his inauguration date, the other thing that would bring him is the ability to appoint the interim DA. He's hinted that he would respect the opinion of Kamala Harris on that pick, but would, if he makes that call, be the one with the final decision on DA.
At this point it isn't totally clear whether he will push the date back, but, legally it looks like he might be able to do it. That has to give it a pretty good chance of happening, I'd say it's a 60% shot now.
2) Does anybody have 6 votes?
That is the big question, and right now, it seems that there are only a few people that could legitimately claim to have those votes. And one of them, Asm. Tom Ammiano, has said that he doesn't want the job. Sup. Chris Daly seems intent on twisting Ammiano's arm into taking the gig. State Sen. Mark Leno would probably have the votes as well, but as he was just appointed Senate Budget Chair, I'm not sure that he would want the gig either. Sen. Leland Yee really, really wants the job, but doesn't have the 6 votes. City Attorney Dennis Herrera and Assessor Phil Ting are also running for mayor, but don't appear to have the 6 votes necessary
Now, if nobody is able to get to 6 votes, the Board President automatically becomes acting mayor. Right now that is Sup. David Chiu. Chiu is also the favorite to retain that position on the new board, and would thus get the mayor's new gig. Now, that wouldn't make him "interim" mayor, but just acting. The big difference is that the acting mayor can be replaced by the board, whereas the interim mayor cannot. Chiu is also rumored to be considering a full run at the Mayor's office if he is named to be interim Mayor. And, running as something of an incumbent, he would at least be in a much stronger position than he is for that right now.
Oh, and just to make things more complicated, there have also been rumors that Chiu is interested in the DA position as well.
3) A care taker?
If the progressive bloc can't get something together to choose an interim mayor, Sheriff Mike Henessey and SFPUC General Manager Ed Harrington are rumored "caretaker" Mayors. The election is just 11 months away, so a caretaker mayor would allow the voters to actually choose the next Mayor.
There are really too many variables to consider, but hopefully this flood of information will somewhat valuable as we watch to see the dominoes fall in San Francisco.
To be clear on one thing, bringing the America's Cup to San Francisco would undoubtedly result in a lot of additional tourism dollars. A figure of between $0.7 and $1.2 billion has been tossed around. That's nothing to really scoff at, even in a tourism rich economy like San Francisco.
But there's a catch with that. San Francisco is going to have to pay some big bucks to get the Cup here:
San Francisco, if selected, would spend $64.1 million on traffic management, environmental reviews, security and other event-related costs, according to the budget analyst's report, which was provided in response to a request from Daly.
The city is expected to recoup $22 million of those costs in taxes generated by increased visitor spending.
Overall, that means that San Francisco, which has a current budget of $6.6 billion and is facing a $712 million projected budget shortfall next year, would spend $42.1 million hosting the Cup while city departments are being asked to slash costs, according to Rose.
Additionally, the city would provide the team with $89.8 million worth of property and waterfront development rights, which would be partly recouped with $3.6 million in additional property taxes. (Bay Citizen)
Now, I am a big fan of sporting events. I go to a lot of Giants games during the season (I even used to live across the street from the stadium), and have been known to get a ticket for the odd football game too. However, I'm not such a big fan of governments paying to get the events. In the case of stadiums, I think it is pretty ridiculous that cities in the same metropolitan areas compete with each other. It is a race to the bottom, where the only real winner is a wealthy owner, and the loser is the taxpayer.
You could argue a nationalistic point of view for the America's cup (and other international events). At least we are bidding against other countries, but the point is that this is once again, the taxpayers (ie the middle class) bidding against each other to give money to a few wealthy profiteers. (In this case Oracle's Larry Ellison)
Would the Cup a) really net us that billion and b) be worth the expenditures necessary to get it? I'm not opposed to hosting these kinds of events, but I look at these things through a purely economic point of view. In other words, would the Cup be a net cost or a net gain for the city's coffers. In this case, I'm just not sure the numbers really pencil out.
Much has been written about how Jane Kim beat San Francisco's "progressive machine" last week to win the District 6 Supervisor race. But a precinct analysis of the election results tells a far bigger story, and explains how she pulled it off. Just like Howard Dean's Fifty State Strategy helped Democrats win nationwide, Jane Kim was everywhere - and conceded no part of District 6. Debra Walker carried the North Mission and a few progressive pockets, but racking up margins in some core precincts is not enough when your opponent actively contests every neighborhood. Kim beat Walker in the Tenderloin (where she had a better operation), and easily won the Chinese precincts - but also carried places like Treasure Island and the Western Addition. And as Jane's field coordinator for condos in Eastern SOMA, I'm very proud she won those precincts by a landslide - as we were the only campaign to show up. These were the Rob Black voters of 2006, but Kim proved that even a progressive can win those neighborhoods - if you bother to talk to them.
There is a healthy amount of attention being paid to California’s systemic fiscal challenges this election cycle – with a new state budget apparently out of balance even before it was signed.
But as we debate how to restore fiscal sanity, we need to understand how the skyrocketing cost of our state’s criminal justice system is contributing to the downward spiral – and what we can do to reverse the fiscally unsustainable trend.
During last year’s budget, California spent 11% of its general fund on the state prison system and only 7.5% on higher education.
This level of spending on prisons requires raising taxes and fees while cutting other programs – and, ironically, the first targets are too often programs that help reduce crime. For example, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is slashing $250 million – almost 45% – of the $560 million it had allocated to rehabilitation this year alone.
We know that sending more kids to summer school lowers the drop-out rate, which is one of the single biggest predictors of future criminal activity. And, we also know that our state prison recidivism rate of nearly 70% could go even higher as proven prison rehabilitation programs continue to fall to the budget axe. And this recidivism rate has an immediate fiscal impact – with the cost of housing a single prisoner in California now reaching nearly $50,000 per year.
Fixing this difficult and systemic problem will take bold new ideas and leadership. And nowhere is this issue more important than in the Attorney General’s race, where San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris has the chance to bring her reform-minded, and cost effective, policies to Sacramento.
During Harris’ tenure, San Francisco has dramatically lowered crime rates by keeping more kids in school, teaching more young people job skills, creating living wage jobs and focusing police and prosecutorial resources on programs that make the most sense, not just programs that make for easy headlines.
The numbers prove the success of these policies. With a very small investment San Francisco has seen a significant 33% drop in elementary school truancy in just the past two years. Since keeping kids in school keeps young adults out of prison, this improvement will not only help protect San Francisco families, it will help protect California taxpayers.
One of the best examples of the effectiveness of the Smart on Crime approach is the Back on Track program Harris launched in San Francisco. The program directs non-violent, first-time drug offenders into job training and rehabilitation services. Since the program was launched, Back on Track graduates have just a 10% recidivism rate – a stark contrast to the typical 50% rate for similar offenders. This success, if it could be replicated statewide, would save hundreds of millions of tax dollars over the long term.
Prison sentences – long prison sentences – are a powerful tool and should be used whenever required to protect our communities. And in San Francisco, conviction rates are up as prosecutors focus on violent and serious crimes.
But the data show that by promoting a range of prevention and intervention programs, Harris has established a track record that can protect communities without bankrupting them.
We tend to think of the Attorney General’s race as focused on issues that are separate from other political contests in California. But with budgets so tight this year, we must embrace an Attorney General who understands how to keep us safe from crime while helping to restore fiscal sanity in Sacramento.
David Onek is a Senior Fellow at the Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice, Host of the Criminal Justice Conversations Podcast and a Former Commissioner on the San Francisco Police Commission.
