Newsom may have to answer for lawsuit against SF

By Tim Redmond

AUGUST 14, 2014 — Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom will be in the spotlight this week, when the State Lands Commission meets in San Francisco to talk, among other things, about its lawsuit trying to stop the city from regulating waterfront development.

On the agenda is a closed-session discussion with attorneys about the lawsuit – which means that, at least as of Friday, Newsom will be fully briefed on how his agency is suing the city he used to run.

The Lands Commission has only three members, so Newsom and one other member could vote to end the suit.

So far, Newsom has been quiet about the case. I called his communications office this afternoon to ask if he supports the lawsuit, but got no response. I can’t find a public record to show if the commission members actually voted to approve the suit or if it happened at the staff level.

But there will be protesters out in front of the Ferry Building, where the commission meets at 1 pm. And unless Newsom finds a sneaky way to get up to the hearing room on the second floor, he may have to face reporters asking him why he’s trying to stop San Francisco from regulating its own waterfront.

The No Wall on the Waterfront Campaign will be on hand to point out that Newsom has received $50,000 in campaign contributions from developers, attorneys, lobbyists, and organizations that opposed Prop. B, the waterfront height-limit measure that the commission is seeking to invalidate.

Although Newsom no longer lives in San Francisco, he’s still suing his own city, since this is where he built his political career.

And in the meantime, Newsom seems to be increasingly linking his political future to a few tech companies and the so-called sharing economy.

In a remarkable email sent out this week, Newsom portrayed himself as the chief cheerleader for the likes of Airbnb, Uber, and Lyft. He announced that government should get out of the way of these new operations and appeared to be placing himself in opposition to even reasonable regulations.

Here’s the email, which came from gavin@gavinnewsom.com:

Ever taken an Uber or a Lyft to get where you’re going? How about Airbnb – have you used it to book yourself a room?

You’re not alone if you haven’t, and some of you may not have even heard of these. But trust me – they’re just the tip of the iceberg in what’s known as the “sharing economy.”

For the uninitiated, here’s the basic idea: you’re connected through your computer or mobile device to someone offering a service, whether that’s a ride to work or someone to pick up your clothes at the cleaner.

Money generally changes hands through the app itself. Customers are served, and more importantly workers are given the chance to make a little – sometimes a lot – of extra money.

It isn’t perfect, but it’s taking hold. And it’s an example of how quickly the way we do business is changing thanks to the unprecedented interconnection we enjoy through the internet and our mobile devices.

It’s also a lesson for government leaders at all levels. Because sometimes, we simply aren’t keeping up. Rather than supporting these new and innovative technologies, too often we just get in the way.

The world is changing, and the government can play an important role. Protecting citizens from fraud and abuse. Holding businesses accountable for the way they treat customers and keep them safe. Maintaining the integrity of the systems we all depend on. This is where government needs to step up.

But if it gets in the way of progress, growth and new development – we’ve failed.

It will take creativity. It will require open minds. But I know we can do this. There are big things on the horizon! Time to get ready.

The problem, of course, is that these new operations want to avoid exactly the kinds of regulations that would protect people from fraud and abuse. They don’t want government to hold them accountable for the way they treat customers.

See, the sharing-economy platforms claim that all they do is broker transactions. Not their fault if something bad happens along the way.

The email ends with a link to the Newsom campaign’s fundraising operation. But it’s not just a fundraising letter – it’s a clear manifesto that the person who would like Jerry Brown’s job thinks it’s better if the state doesn’t try too hard to regulate these new outfits.

That’s a somewhat alarming model of the future that every Californian should be thinking about.