SFPD surveillance unit’s close ties to crypto billionaire

Why am I the only one in the news media who seems a bit concerned that a crypto billionaire is housing the city’s new high-tech police surveillance unit in his downtown building?

Mayor Daniel Lurie announced in June that Chris Larsen has donated $9.4 million to allow the Real Time Investigation Center to operate in Ripple Labs San Francisco headquarters. From the mayor’s press release:

“San Francisco should be the shining example of how to leverage state-of-the-art, coordinated public safety technology and with the right pragmatic safeguards in place,” said Chris Larsen, Co-founder and Executive Chairman of Ripple, Inc. “We are proud to help usher in a new era of accountability with the launch of an enhanced Real-Time Investigation Center for SFPD and law enforcement partners that matches San Francisco’s reputation as the innovation capital of the world.”

The RTIC is also funded by Larsen’s San Francisco Police Community Fund and billionaire Michael Mortiz’s Crankstart Foundation.

In other words: The high-tech unit of SFPD is funded almost entirely by two tech billionaires, and the surveillance systems it operates will be housed in one of those billionaires’ offices.

Does that not make anyone else nervous?

This is another big step in the privatization of San Francisco policing and the overall move by Lurie to rely on voluntary gifts from the very rich instead of taxes and democratic budgeting by elected officials to fund services in San Francisco.

We have been talking for months about ways to save public transit—without making poor and working class pay most of the burden. That means looking for ways to avoid fare hikes and sales taxes.

Three labor and environmental advocates, include a BART union leader, has picked up the argument, and the Chron even agreed to publish their opinion piece.

The argument: A sales tax is unfair and regressive, and lets the big businesses that benefit from having an effective transit system off the hook. A gross receipts tax on the biggest companies in the Bay Area would be far more progressive and could raise far more money not just to save but to expand BART, Muni, AC Transit, and other local agencies.

It’s also popular with voters, polling at 60 percent. Passing a sales tax, that would add to the already high sales tax burden on working people, might be more difficult:

That’s exactly why we support a gross receipts tax over a sales tax: It is the only funding measure that has voter support and will fully fund public transportation by ensuring each transit agency receives the full amount of funds it needs to maintain (and in some cases, to restore) service.

I asked State Sen. Scott Wiener, who is a hug transit advocate, if he would push for a corporate income tax or local wealth tax instead of a sales tax, and he said he would favor raising the state corporate tax rate on businesses that got a cut from Trump, but “we need a two-thirds vote in the Legislature to raise taxes.” At any rate, that’s not a dedicated tax for local transit, and he was more than reluctant to accept that the biggest businesses and richest people should pay for BART and Muni.

I think the bigger reason Wiener and his allies are pushing for a sales tax is that big business might support it and give money to the campaign, and at the very least won’t oppose it.

But if labor is willing to kick in money and political organizing to get this on the ballot, and the governor and Wiener and his political allies are willing to push big business not to fund a No campaign (or stand up to them publicly if they do; Gavin Newsom’s having fun embarrassing Trump with Tweets these days, and he could do the same for giant corporations that won’t fund transit), there’s a path to victory.

Who would pay the tax? Apple, Meta, Nvidia, Google, Wells Fargo, Cisco Systems, Uber … mostly Big Tech, that has been raking in profits for decades. The top four alone had gross receipts of more than $1 trillion last year. A tiny tax on them (again, that’s just four companies alone) would fund a world-class transit system, and they can well afford it: The four had profits (not gross receipts, profits) of $327 billion last year. Small businesses would be exempt.

It worked in San Francisco, where voters approved an increased gross receipts tax on the biggest businesses in town to fund affordable housing. Despite opposition from the Chamber of Commerce, the Building Owners and Managers Association, and then-Mayor London Breed, it passed overwhelmingly with 61.5 percent of the vote.,

Surely, we can consider that for a regional measure that will impact transportation (and the lives of millions) for generations to come.

The mayor’s “Family Zoning Plan,” which will increase height and density across the West Side of town and area areas like the Haight (threatening small businesses in neighborhood commercial strips), is making its way through the political system. The Historic Preservation Commission will hear an informational presentation on the plan Wednesday/20, and it’s slated for a hearing and approval at the Planning Commission Sept. 11, at which point it will go to the Board of Supes.

The Historic Preservation Commission doesn’t have to approve it, since it makes no changes to the city’s preservation laws—but there are serious issues about potentially historic properties that may be in the way of the bulldozers. (We’re seen that in the 1980s, when dozens of irreplaceable vintage Victorians were demolished in the Richmond for denser, cheap, “builders specials.”)

Hundreds of buildings in the area slated for upzoning date to the 1800s or the early 1900s, but most of them aren’t legally landmarks. How far is the city planning to go to wipe out its architectural history in the name of building more market-rate housing? The commissioners might want to ask.

The ballot handbook for the recall of Sup. Joel Engardio is out, and while only residents of D4 will get one in the mail, it’s on the Dept. of Elections website. As usual, the paid arguments for and against what will be on the ballot as Prop. A offer an interesting window into the campaign.

Supporting Engardio are the local chapter of the Sierra Club (which has been taken over by Yimbys), the Police Officers Association (which might still have some credibility in D4), and supporters of testing-based admissions at Lowell High School and eighth-grade algebra (the conservative West Side parents). He’s also backed by groups that support Mayor Lurie’s agenda:

For the first time in years, San Francisco finally has aligned leadership moving the city forward. Mayor Lurie, Board President Rafael Mandelman and Supervisor Joel Engardio are working together to improve public safety, fix city government, support small businesses, and rebuild trust.

But Lurie so far has not made a statement on the recall. He’s in a bit of a political dilemma: Engardio has been with him on all of the key votes, but Lurie was elected with strong support from the same voters that are furious about closing the Great Highway.

Meanwhile, several of the No on A arguments talk about how a recall is inappropriate if it’s just about a political disagreement. (This is what the Chron said in its recent No on A editorial). From Ann Herbst of Far Out Gallery:

Recalls are for serious wrongdoing or corruption, not disagreement over a single issue. Sadly, this recall is about political retaliation over a single issue. And it’s putting the great things happening in the Sunset at risk.

The problem, of course, is that Engardio made his political career arounds supporting recalls that were not about corruption or wrongdoing but about disagreement on issues. Chesa Boudin was elected district attorney on a reform platform, and he did exactly what he said he was going to do. Some people didn’t like it, but nobody said he was corrupt or incompetent. Engardio supported his recall.

Most of the Yes on A arguments are about what the critics say are Engardio’s failures to get meaningful community input on the decision to close the Great Highway. From the Chinese American Democratic Club:

We supported Joel Engardio in his last three campaigns for supervisor. However, he failed to inform us about major decisions, including his authored legislation to close the Great Highway-a stance that contradicts his campaign promises.

Our community supported him, he turned his back. After a five-month process, 93% of our members voted to recall Engardio. Trust is irreparably broken. We stand for the everyday people of the Sunset.

From Selena Chu:

I believed in Joel Engardio. I volunteered for him. I told neighbors he cared.
I was wrong.

He promised to listen, then stopped holding town halls. He promised an “Asian Night Market,” then took credit for a community-led event he nearly ruined. He promised to support our compromise on the Great Highway — then forced a permanent closure on us.

Then there’s this one, from Otto Pippenger, a D4 resident:

Engardio made a name recalling others – now he calls it “unjust”? Hypocrisy!

He says recalls must meet high standards – unless he’s the one starting them! Now that he’s betrayed 64% of voters and broken core promises, he claims the rules don’t apply to him.

The Great Highway closure is just the tip of the iceberg. He listens to billionaires, not Sunset families. He leads recalls but thinks he’s untouchable.

Let’s hold the Recaller accountable. Karma is a bitch. Vote YES to recall Joel Engardio.

There are about 50,000 voters in D4. More than 10,000 signed petitions for the recall. I am assuming they will be the most motivated voters. If 15,000 people turn in ballots on this single-issue election, I will be shocked. The math does not look good for Sup. Engardio.