A right-wing organization funded by a billionaire Republican donor has jumped into the discussion over San Francisco’s lawsuit against the federal Environmental Protection Agency—and is using dubious talking points to attack two supervisors who are up for re-election.
Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy is sending out mailers in at least two districts—D1, where Sup. Connie Chan is in a tight race, and D7, where Sup. Myrna Melgar is also facing a challenge.
The mailers don’t talk about sewage, or environmental protection, or the fact that San Francisco is about to give the US Supreme Court the opportunity to gut the Clean Water Act. Or that dozens of environmental groups are urging the city to drop its lawsuit.
Instead, they insist that if the city doesn’t let the high court undermine half a century of environmental law—as it almost certainly will—water rates will go up. By tenfold. Which is a total fabrication.
Although the mailers don’t urge voters to oppose those two supes—they are so-called “issue ads”—the message is pretty clear: If Melgar and Chan vote to urge the SF Public Utilities Commission and city attorney to pull a Supreme Court appeal, they will be costing residents a lot of money, so you should vote them out of office.
The background: San Francisco has a combined storm sewer and wastewater system, and during periods of heavy rain, the city dumps raw sewage into the Bay and the Pacific Ocean.
The EPA has been demanding the city reduce its toxic discharges, and the city has made efforts to comply. But the SFPUC argues that the EPA rules are too vague. Joined by the mining and petrochemical industries, City Attorney David Chiu is asking the court to overturn a Ninth Circuit decision ruling that that the city has to comply with state and federal standards for water quality along the Pacific Coast.
The legal arguments are complex, but the politics are simple: Every major environmental group is on one side. The city and the chemical and mining industry (along with some other big cities that discharge pollutants into the water) is on the other.
Help us save local journalism!
Every tax-deductible donation helps us grow to cover the issues that mean the most to our community. Become a 48 Hills Hero and support the only daily progressive news source in the Bay Area.
Now, the real estate and tech billionaires are siding with the city and trying to intimidate Melgar and Chan.
The supes have no direct authority over the SFPUC and the city attorney, and the resolution by Melgar and Sup. Aaron Peskin simply urges those agencies to drop the appeal, which is slated to be heard in the Supreme Court this month.
In theory, the supes could cut off funding for the appeal, but it’s a little late for that.
So if Mayor Breed and Chiu ignored the resolution, the case will move forward.
If the city loses (unlikely), or if they supes convince the key officials to drop the case, the idea that water rates will go up by a factor of ten is ridiculous. If Donald Trump is elected, the EPA will be all-but disbanded anyway. If Kamala Harris is elected, and Rep. Nancy Pelosi is re-elected (guaranteed), San Francisco will have plenty of clout in Washington DC to work out a settlement that will protect water quality without requiring tens of billions in new spending.
The Land Use and Transpiration Committee will consider the Melgar-Peskin resolution Monday/7, and it will come to the full board the next day.
Neighbors for a Better San Francisco has shown no interest in this issue until just now, when the group apparently sees it as a way to promote its conservative candidates for the board. I’ll be interested to see which supes side with the billionaires on this one.
Peskin’s measure that could expand rent control to 100,000 more tenants if state Prop. 33 passes comes to the full board Tuesday/8—and the debate will show a lot about how successful the real estate industry has been in promoting the theory that rent control means less housing.
We have heard this line over and over for decades, every time anyone tries to expand rent control, and there’s no evidence it’s true. As we noted:
Now: every time anyone suggests expanding rent control, anywhere in the state, the landlord lobby says the move is “anti-housing” because it will discourage new construction. Corey Smith, director of the Housing Action Coalition, told the supes that Mayor London Breed has vowed to veto any “anti-housing” legislation that comes before her, and he suggested this would be included.
This is the same Corey Smith who recently told the supes that rents need to go up more in San Francisco so developers will want to build more housing—which undermines the main tenet of the Yimby movement: That more housing will bring down prices.
The full board meeting starts at 2pm.
