Port Commissioner Mel Murphy is back in the news, and it's not because of his Port Commissioning.
Earlier this month it came to light that the influential developer had reinstalled stacking parking devices at an 11-unit Mission Street property he owns, despite specific instructions from a city building inspector to remove them.
This was the latest in a litany of instances in which Murphy was found to have flouted the rules — often with a result of shortchanging city coffers by scores of thousands of dollars. Prior to poking around by the San Francisco Chronicle, Murphy failed to pay some $168,000 in fees on that property.
Readers may recall Murphy as the subject of a 2012 SF Weekly story about the loopholes city builders exploit to expand small homes into mansions; Murphy received city approval to "remodel" a shack at 125 Crown Terrace from 854 square feet to 5,139 square feet. Critics slammed Murphy's plans as an attack on common sense, the dictionary, and the laws of physics. And they were right: Last December, Murphy's home tumbled down an embankment onto city streets.
The price estimates for the ill-fated home were originally submitted at perhaps one-tenth a realistic cost of the work, thereby depriving the city of thousands in permit fees.
And so, after all that, the question is prompted: What would compel the mayor to remove this troublesome commissioner?
The answer to that query is unknown, as SF Weekly does not know what it would take to compel the mayor's spokespeople to return our many calls and messages. Murphy, Lee's golfing chum and a heavy donor, told us he couldn't discuss this complex matter while driving through traffic and would call us back. He didn't.
When Lee's political critics lamented that state Sen. Mark Leno's decision to bail on the mayoral race would allow Lee to act with impunity, this is what they were talking about.
A deep-pocketed activist, however, could compel the electorate to do what the mayor apparently will not.
Rather uniquely among city commissions, port commissioners are subject to recall. Per Section 4.114 of the City Charter: "They shall be subject to recall, suspension and removal in the same manner as an elected official."
Initiating a recall, however, is an uphill battle. Signatures representing 10 percent of the electorate would be required. That's around 50,000. That's a lot. That has never happened before.
The logistical and financial hurdles of acquiring that many signatures led even the transcendently wealthy forces pushing for Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi's ouster to abandon a recall attempt.
Lee, you'll recall, suspended Mirkarimi. The sheriff, however, managed to hold onto his post. Like Murphy.
Showing 1-1 of 1
Comments are closed.
