Mayor Daniel Lurie’s attempt to oust one of the best members of the Police Commission will come before the full Board of Supes Feb. 25, and while it appears Lurie has the six votes he needs, police accountability activists are organizing and the hearing room will be packed.
A broad-based coalition that includes the ACLU, Secure Justice, the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office, the Harvey Milk Club, the Anti Police Terror Project, and San Francisco Rising, among many others, is holding a press conference and demonstration on the steps of City Hall Monday/24 at noon to call on the supes not to go along with Lurie’s move.
A letter to the supes signed by 30 organizations notes:
In the June 2003 election, San Francisco voters approved Measure H, amending the city charter to require Board approval of Mayoral appointees. In the 2024 election, San Francisco voters supported Measure C, which created the office of an Inspector General to address recent shocking headlines at City Hall pertaining to taxpayer fraud and corruption of administrative officials. In the same election, the voters of San Francisco rejected Measure D, which would have given the Mayor sole authority to appoint and remove Department Heads and provide the Chief of Police with sole authority to adopt rules governing police officer misconduct. These results confirm that a majority of San Francisco voters favor independent oversight and a balance of power between the administrative and legislative branches at City Hall.
…
In these troubling political times, when the very credibility and integrity of San Francisco City Hall has been placed at great risk by corrupt individuals and wasted expenditure of taxpayer funds, now is the time for greater independent oversight, not less. Removing a commissioner like Mr. Carter-Oberstone who has demonstrated his commitment to providing unbiased and rigorous oversight of the police department will lead to weak policies and a lack of accountability regarding misconduct.
The vote will be an important show of how willing the new supes are to stand up to the mayor on an issue of police oversight—and the independence of local commissions.
The hearing starts at 3pm.
The board will also consider a measure to eliminate most fees for private, for-profit developers who want to turn existing office space into housing. That includes eliminating affordable housing requirements.
The Land Use and Transportation Committee approved the measure 2-1, with Chyanne Chen in opposition. As we noted after that decision:
But the vote, if approved by the full board, sets a precedent that the city is willing to favor private market-rate developers and offer them whatever tax and fee breaks are needed to make projects for rich people profitable enough to move forward.
Another test for the new board.
The Land Use and Transportation Committee will consider a fairly sweeping measure by Sup. Myrna Melgar putting the supes on record supporting the Municipal Transportation Agency’s plans to use vacant Muni property for private development.
SFMTA owns a lot of land, and some of it is empty or underused. The agency is also facing a massive budget deficit, around $320 million. And Muni service is crucial for the future of the city.
So the agency is looking at ways to leverage its property, by leasing it to private developers or entering into joint development projects that could, potentially, be a major source of revenue.
That development could include market-rate housing and commercial projects. The developers would get free land; Muni would get a cut of the profits.
It raises a difficult question: In tough economic times, should the city leverage public land for private development and the money it brings in—or should public land be used for public priorities, like affordable housing?
John Avalos, director of the Council of Community Housing Organizations, has some issues with the measure:
Market-rate development—whether commercial or residential—often raises property values, increasing displacement pressures and gentrification. While transit-oriented development boosts ridership, it also attracts higher-income residents who can afford higher fares. From this perspective, allowing market-rate development on MTA-owned land undermines the city’s broader affordability goals, including those of the MTA itself. Therefore, the resolution should be amended to ensure that the MTA’s Joint Development Agreement goals align with the city’s housing affordability priorities and the MTA’s commitment to equitable fares for working people who rely on affordable transit.
Melgar told me that
It is insane that instead of taxing the rich to build affordable housing and community benefits, we expect to use the assets of an underfunded public transportation agency.
I think most affordable housing advocates would be thrilled with a measure taxing the rich for affordable housing and transit; that’s something, tragically, that the current administration in San Francisco and Sacramento don’t seem to have even remotely on the agenda.
Meanwhile, the supes have received more than 1,500 form letters supporting the development plan. Melgar and Avalos both told me they don’t know who is behind that organizing effort.
The hearing starts at 1:30 pm.
Former Mayor London Breed, current Mayor Daniel Lurie, state Sen. Scott Wiener, Assembly Member Matt Haney, many of the new supes … the whole Yimby-backed political infrastructure is in favor of increasing density in residential neighborhoods.
There are serious issues with that approach. Allow, say, eight story buildings along corridors like Clement Street, and we’ll see massive small business displacement (because you can’t build a new taller building without demolishing the one that’s already there.)
Demolishing existing buildings is also a huge risk to residential tenants, who would be displaced, and in many cases, despite some legal rights, would never come back at the same rent.
The Planning Commission holds a hearing Thursday/27 to discuss tenant protections under upzoning. The Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition will make a presentation.
State law gives tenants some protection; on the other hand, speculators and unscrupulous landlords are notorious for not following the law. A tenant who is evicted for a demolition may have a legal right to return, at an affordable rent, to the new building—but by then, several years will have passed, the tenant won’t have affordable rent in a replacement unit, and may just leave town.
There is nothing in state law that would require a developer to provide a replacement unit at the same rent the tenant is paying while demolition and reconstruction happens, or to pay the difference between the existing rent and the new rent.
Former Sup. David Campos tried to make that part of local law for evictions; a federal judge shot it down.
The hearing starts at noon.
