Sponsored link
Thursday, October 21, 2021

Sponsored link

UncategorizedNewsom says he voted to sue San Francisco

Newsom says he voted to sue San Francisco

Gav at the State Lands Commission meeting. Photo by Steve Rhodes
Gav at the State Lands Commission meeting. Photo by Steve Rhodes

By Tim Redmond

AUGUST 15, 2014 – We solved one mystery today.

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom showed up for the State Lands Commission meeting at the Ferry Building, and I was able to corner him briefly in the hall outside. Not exactly a long interview – more me walking briskly alongside the Lite Guv as he tried to make it from the elevator to the hearing room – but I got in the critical question, and got a direct answer:

Yes, Gavin Newsom did vote to sue San Francisco. “We all did,” he said, meaning the three commissioners were unanimous.

And how does he feel about suing his former city, the place that gave him his start in politics? How does he feel about using the power of the state to tamp down the will of the voters in his hometown?

“That’s a ridiculous question,” the Gavster said. “I represent the state of California, and I am upholding California state law.”

There you have it.

Actually, the person who wrote the law that Newsom claims to be upholding, John Burton, says the lawsuit is ridiculous and his piece of legislation was never intended to limit the ability of local voters to weigh in on large development projects on Port of San Francisco land.

But the courts will sort that it, if the case ever gets to court.

The SLC is clearly paying attention. Although Newsom told me this was mostly a staff-driven move, and the commissioners just ratified the decision to sue, the case has created enough controversy that the three state officials can’t ignore it.

Protesters ask Newsom to call off the suit against SF
Protesters ask Newsom to call off the suit against SF

After the chair of the commission, Alan Gordon, who sits in for state Controller John Chiang, watched a lively press conference in front of the Ferry Building demanding an end to the lawsuit, the members moved public comment from the end of the meeting to near the beginning, and allowed some discussion of the case.

Nothing came of it, but at least Newsom and his colleagues heard how unhappy some San Franciscans are to see the state tell us that we can’t vote to control the future of development on the waterfront.

Jon Golinger, who ran the No Wall on the Waterfront campaign, asked Newsom why it was okay for the Lite Guv to star in TV ads promoting a ballot measure to allow the 8 Washington project when it’s not okay for the voters to approve a ballot measure limiting that kind of development.

Newsom never answered. But the question is out there.

The press conference featured Becky Evans of the Sierra Club, Sup. David Campos, and Potrero Hill activist and supervisor candidate Tony Kelly. They all argued that, as Campos put it, “the voters have spoken” and that Sacramento has no business telling San Francisco whether luxury condos can be built on the waterfront.

Prop. B, which Newsom and his colleagues are suing to halt, doesn’t stop development; it just forces developers to put their big projects to a vote of the people. Good ones (like AT&T Park, which went to a public vote) will win. Bad ones won’t.

It allows full sunshine on development deals, Kelly said, and eliminated backroom agreements made with the Port Commission, which is appointed entirely by the mayor. “One of the people who made these backroom deals,” Kelly said, “is now suing the city.”

48hills and the Lite Guv: Seriously now, who has the better hair?
48hills and the Lite Guv: Seriously now, who has the better hair? Thanks to Steve Rhodes for catching this epic pic

 

Tim Redmond
Tim Redmond has been a political and investigative reporter in San Francisco for more than 30 years. He spent much of that time as executive editor of the Bay Guardian. He is the founder of 48hills.
Sponsored link

12 COMMENTS

  1. Replies to comments do not appear with those comments. I see that others’ do, but not mine, and they look stupid out there all by themselves! I clicked reply under others’ comments, my last 2 replies did not show up where they were supposed to.

  2. All new construction either needs to have affordable units including in the design or the builder needs to pay the City a fee so the City can construct affordable units. If affordable units are not available its because the City isn’t using the money it receives from new construction to build or obtain affordable units. This is a problem with how the City of SF is handling its funds and how it is working to resolve the issue of low inventory.

  3. The old canard. Build it and the price will be lower. Hah! Not so. We are practically saturating SF with buildings and none are affordable.

  4. I’m glad Newsom voted the way that he did. The waterfront building rules are going to have a huge impact on building of new housing and commercial construction all over SF, but especially in Mission Bay where a bunch of projects were in queue to break ground. People who complain about sky high rents and real-estate prices, yet vote for construction restrictions like Prop B are getting in their own way. Not to mention that Prop B was financed by those wealthy condo owners who didn’t want their views obstructed. Good job Newsom!

  5. A little history lesson on Newsom and same-sex marriage: In his 2003 race for mayor, Newsom avoided the question of same-sex marriage whenever he was asked about it. His opponent Matt Gonzalez spoke out in favor wherever and whenever he was asked. Newsom lost the gay vote, and District 8. He felt the need to try to win over gays because he had a referendum on the ballot regarding southern waterfront development. So he brainstormed with his staff, and they came up with the idea of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

    One lesson in this is that sometimes it pays to challenge a political juggernaut, because even in losing, you can move an agenda forward. Another is that Newsom is a hypocrite on development referenda, but of course we knew that already.

  6. A political opportunist. I really think that even his support of gay marriage was driven by the fact that it would net him a national presence.

  7. I thought we were rid of this corporate creep. Newsom seems to get a free pass for his brave support of gay marriage, but, like the “socially progressive” right-wing of Silicon Valley billionaires, he’s contemptuous of actual democracy and the will of the people.

    And Tim, you’d do better to compare paunches with this well-fed huckster.

  8. Just for the fun of it, I’d like to see someone ask Ed Lee to comment on Newsom’s vote. How will he avoid insulting his mentor and stepping in political doo at the same time?

Comments are closed.

Sponsored link

Top reads

Luxury housing will destroy the last low-income community in Soma

Oh, and on a site with very shaky ground, the building could be the next Leaning Tower.

Dance festival honors 5700 indigenous people once buried in Dolores Park

FLACC's outdoor Latinx and Indigenous performances in 'sii agua sí: Remembering the Waterways in Yelamu' activate the forgotten

No, Walgreens isn’t closing stores because of massive shoplifting in SF

The Agenda: Protecting tenants from predatory ADUs, where will people tossed of our SIP hotels go, and the start of local redistricting.

More by this author

Haney launches Assembly campaign with strong building-trades union support

Sups. Safai and Walton and BART Board member Lateefah Simon also speak in favor of Haney.

No, Walgreens isn’t closing stores because of massive shoplifting in SF

The Agenda: Protecting tenants from predatory ADUs, where will people tossed of our SIP hotels go, and the start of local redistricting.

Landlords seek to evict longtime housing activists

Family with many residential properties claims need for an owner move-in; community organizes to fight back.
Sponsored link

You might also likeRELATED