Sponsored link
Sunday, September 26, 2021

Sponsored link

News + PoliticsThe Agenda, April 18-25: Police accountability, fighting a really...

The Agenda, April 18-25: Police accountability, fighting a really bad eviction ….

... plus inclusionary housing and a better Sanctuary City law

In Los Angeles County, law-enforcement officers have shot more than 2,000 people in the past 15 years – and exactly one officer has ever been charged with a crime. That’s a shocking statistic on one level – but it’s also not surprising. Cops kill people all the time, and it’s very, very rare that a local district attorney will ever do anything about it.

State Sen. Mark Leno tried twice to get a former governor to sign a marriage equality bill
Sen. Mark Leno has a bill to force more police accountability

The real shocker is that the public will, in most cases, never find out who the officers were, whether any of those officers were found to have acted improperly or were disciplined, or what the results were of any internal investigation. That’s because California has some of the worst laws in the country around police accountability.

Pretty much any disciplinary action against a law-enforcement officer is considered secret in this state. Even if an officer has multiple sanctions for serious offenses, including sexual assault, racial profiling, or illegal searches, the public never finds out.

The Office of Citizen Complaints, the San Francisco agency that investigates complaints against officers, can’t release anything other than very basic data, never including the names of the officers involved. Even the person who files a complaint can’t see the results unless they sign a document swearing to keep the information secret.

The SFPD did, or will do, internal investigations of the shootings of Alex Nieto, Amilcar Lopez, Mario Woods, and Luis Gongora. Suppose those investigations show that the officers violated the rules and procedures that they are trained to follow, and they are given suspensions or written warnings. Suppose the same officers do the same thing over again.

We will never know, because all of that is secret.

But there’s a chance the situation will change this year. State Sen. Mark Leno, who is in his final term, has introduced a measure that would mandate that the public have access to records of sustained charges of serious misconduct by law-enforcement officers, and any records relating to use of force that causes death or serious bodily injury (which means pretty much all shootings).

The police unions are fighting bitterly against the bill (and the Orange County Register had to admonish Republicans who oppose it) but Leno got SB 1286 thought the Public Safety Committee two weeks ago, and after a brief stop in Appropriations, where it won’t run into problems since it doesn’t cost the state any money, will be on the Senate floor by May, Leno told me.

The SF Board of Supes will decide Tuesday/19 whether to endorse the bill, and the resolution of support already has eight sponsors. But you can count on the San Francisco POA, which continues to embarrass itself more and more by the week, to try to block it.

 

Supporters of Iris Canada, the 99-year-old who is facing eviction, will be at SF Superior Court at 8:30am Tuesday/19 to rally before a court hearing that’s expected to start at 9:30.

Canada has lived in her apartment for some 60 years, but her landlord is trying to get her out, claiming she doesn’t really live in the place any more. Reporters who went to visit her found the place clean, orderly – and clearly occupied.

The story has gone across the country, to Burlington, VT, where Bernie Sanders used to be mayor: The landlord, Peter Owens, runs that city’s Community Economic and Development Office.

Or he does for another couple of weeks. In the wake of the controversy over the eviction, Owens announced last week that he’s resigning. All he needs to do now is call off the eviction. We’ll see Tuesday.

 

The city’s new sheriff told a Board of Supervisors committee April 7 that she reserves the right to alert the federal immigration authorities if she thinks a person in her custody should be handed over to them upon release from the city jail. That’s a significant change from the policy of her predecessor, Ross Mirkarimi, who didn’t cooperate with the Immigration Control and Enforcement agency.

The hearing was tense: Sup. David Campos told Sheriff Vicky Hennessy that “It’s a sad day for San Francisco that we have an elected sheriff who is turning back the clock on sanctuary.” Hennessy said she disagreed, and that under certain circumstances, “I reserve the right to make notifications.”

Campos, along with Sups. John Avalos, Jane Kim, Eric Mar, and Aaron Peskin, have a measure that would prohibit the use of city funds to “assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law,” except for people convicted of a violent felony and held to answer for a violent felony.

If the measure passes, the sheriff, and all other city officials, will have to abide by a much stricter interpretation of the Sanctuary City law. The mayor in the past has opposed that policy, saying that the sheriff and police should have the right to call ICE under certain circumstances and send someone to deportation.

The measure cleared committee and will be up at the full board Tuesday/19.

 

The Land Use and Transportation Committee looks at the question of inclusionary housing Monday/18. It’s an ongoing battle, one that will also be on the June ballot (Prop. C would increase the mandatory levels of affordable housing and allow the supes to change those levels.) The ordinance before Land Use would increase the fee that developers have to pay if they don’t build affordable units – and would have the controller prepare and Economic Feasibility Report looking at how much developers can actually afford to pay.

That kind of report, it its fair and honest and complete, could lead to some seriously sticky questions. Some developers say that they can’t afford to build market-rate housing projects today if the mandates for affordable housing are too high. But the data we already have shows that every 100 units of luxury housing creates a demand for 30 units for affordable housing – meaning that at an level lower than 30 percent, building more high-end housing is actually making the housing crisis worse.

Which could certainly be an argument for saying: If market-rate housing can’t pay for the costs it imposes on the city, maybe we should stop building it. You know, when you’re in a hole you stop digging. And like that.

The hearing’s at 1:30 pm in the Board of Supes chambers.

And do miss our Third Anniversary Gala Thursday/21! it’s your support that makes 48hills possible, so I hope to see you there!

Previous articleDJ Minx comes through
Next articleAll eyes on SFIFF59
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. Unless you build 100 MRUs – or stop additional jobs – then you will not make the housing crisis less – you will merely displace 100 working class households by people who would otherwise move into the 100 MRUs.

    And while those displaced 100 working class households would decrease the demand for other working class households (the < 30 BMR units), you would still have an increase in =30 BMR units from the new, wealthier neighbors.

    So, building 100 MRUs creates demand for 30 BMRs, but NOT building them creates even more demand — for 30+ BMRs.

  2. “…the data we already have shows that every 100 units of luxury housing creates a demand for 30 units for affordable housing – meaning that at an level lower than 30 percent, building more high-end housing is actually making the housing crisis worse.”

    No, it means that — according to the author’s own figures — a lower level than 23 percent would ostensively make the housing crisis worse, i.e., 30 subsidized units / (100 market rate units + 30 subsidized units) = 23%.

  3. That’s not data that’s an opinion piece. This is data. Objective, unbiased, recent, and relevant data. Our housing crisis is driven by a lack of housing supply and to get out of it we need to build a LOT of market rate housing. Taxing housing to pay for housing is what we have been doing for 40 years and it is not working and it needs to stop.
    http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/report/3345

  4. Good clarification! Its easy to get this stuff muddled up. I just wanted to put the texts themselves into the hands of any interested readers.

  5. The LAO report you cite actually compares similar census tracts in the Bay Area and looks at those with inclusionary ordinances and those without. The tracts without inclusionary ordinances actually build more affordable housing. Tim’s “data” is, as you say, slightly suspect.

  6. You have data that shows that creating housing supply in a constrained market increases housing demand? My high school economics teacher wants to see that!

  7. In re: market rate housing stimulates demand for affordable housing.

    The author is referencing but does not cite is here:http://sf-planning.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/8380-FINAL%20Resid%20Nexus_04-4-07.pdf

    That study was conducted to justify the inclusionary housing fee, not to actually demonstrate how many low income people who would move here if new market rate housing were built. It doesn’t address the issue of current housing demand or suggest that not building housing will reduce demand.

    Another important study is this one, from the CA LAO, that’s says market rate housing mitigates displacement: http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345

    The city’s own economist has said that market rat housing moratoria will expedite displacement.

    http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/City-report-Mission-building-moratorium-would-6496797.php

Comments are closed.

Sponsored link

Top reads

A new dark-money group with GOP support seeks to raise crime fears

A misleading mailer attacking the record of DA Chesa Boudin hits the streets—but who paid for it?

A car-free JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park is finally close to reality

But there are some complicated equity issues that will require a lot more discussion.

Robots in the crash pad: The twisted takeover of the Red Victorian Hotel

How Haight Ashbury countercultural ideals were distorted by a tech "co-living" experiment, and a trans performance community was displaced.

More by this author

While people sit in jail cells, SF courts delay criminal trials

Judges hear civil cases while violating the law and delaying the right to a speedy trial for criminal defendants, public defender says.

A car-free JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park is finally close to reality

But there are some complicated equity issues that will require a lot more discussion.

Should SF ban the no-knock warrants that lead to Breonna Taylor’s death?

Plus: Juvenile justice, small-business rent relief, and a 'beach-to-the-Bay' bike path. That's The Agenda for Sept. 20-26.
Sponsored link

You might also likeRELATED