1. Discuss cuts to the California Healthy Families Program, 2. "evaluate the City's commitment to universal healthcare for children and youth, and" ... 3. "identify solutions that guarantee every child access to health insurance."So once again, she's putting forward the kind of busywork that everyone can get behind. Hey, I'm going to go out on a limb here: Does it strike anyone else that Alioto-Pier's constant defense of children masks a seething hatred of adults? Because, if you look at her legislative record, you could make a case that if you're not an expectant mommy or a baby, she wants you dead. I'm just wondering.
Continuing on the "health" theme, Newsom has a proposal designating the psychiatric facilities at the Jewish Home of San Francisco to be evaluation and treatment centers for individuals 75 and older -- which I'm pretty sure (not really) is a way of pandering to the elderly Jewish vote.
This effort is bound to fail, because while Gavin surely comes across as a "Nice Boy," he is also an absolute ringer for all the chazerai who kept Ira and Ethel Myrtlebaum out of the country clubs they applied to for 50 years. Seriously, the resemblance is uncanny.
Because no matter who we are, if we close our eyes and use our imaginations, we call all easily picture someone who looks like Gavin Newsom telling us "I'm sorry, you just aren't a good fit for Bushwood." Then he admires his perfect hair in the mirror, waves to his rich-heiress-wife-who-wants-to-be-an-actress-and-produce-movies-about-serious-themes, and goes back in to the party where deals are being made over scallops wrapped in bacon wrapped in $100 bills wrapped in children's letters to Santa.
For the record, that's not Gavin Newsom, really. But his "I don't have to answer to you little people because my SUV is a hybrid" smirk is still going to rub the Myrtlebaums the wrong way every time.
That's probably why they gave to Jerry Brown. Did you know he's winning?
Finally, the committee's health kick winds down with a hearing called by Sean Elsbernd (who I recently learned is the one true Lord of the Dance. Did you know that?) about medical screening procedures for Municipal Transportation Association personnel. (Bevan Dufty has a similar hearing today, but it's non-health related and a campaign event.) This will finally answer a question I've been wanting to know ever since I moved to San Francisco: Just how sober do you have to be to drive one of them big trains?
Admit it: After a long night on the town, coming home from the bars at 2 a.m. dressed in someone else's pirate costume, we've all chased down a train, stumbled up the stairs, eyeballed the driver, and thought: "I could do that."
Oh, speaking of bars, the proposals to more tightly regulate extended hours and the place of entertainment permits are before the board again. This legislation has been before the board for about a year and a half now, and there's really nothing new to say about it. You can rest assured -- they'll go over it all one more time. If not more.
1 p.m. - Land Use & Economic Development Committee
A majority of the Supes oppose a BART surcharge on SFO employees. They want you to know that because, unlike BART, you might care what they think.
You have to be an optimist to last long in politics.
A surprisingly broad coalition (Campos, Maxwell, Mirkarimi, Dufty, Chiu, and Chu) have also proposed what sounds line terrific regulations for Mortgage Modification Consultants -- swarthy financial pirates who sail under flags of continued home ownership but often sink troubled mortgages to the bottom of the red fiscal sea.
Yarrrrrrr.
The regulations would require that Mortgage Modification Consultants:
• Provide a written contract describing services to be provided prior to initiation of services;• Provide notice on any contract entered into that the services may be canceled within 14 calendar days AND that the services may be obtained free of charge from nonprofit sources;
• No longer be allowed to collect fees until the consultant has obtained a written loan modification offer for the homeowner;
• Be subject to enforcement by criminal penalties and private cause of action.
Hilariously, the bill will also make "environmental findings," just in case these new regulations would create more traffic, or spew greenhouse gases.
I'm not normally one for overregulation of businesses -- and in 21st-century San Francisco, nearly any proposed regulation is overregulation -- but I have to say these sound solid to me. Because we already trusted the industry to police itself, and look what happened.
Damn it, does NOBODY follow the honor system anymore?
How about the buddy system? If we asked the housing industry and the financial industry to at least hold hands, would they do it? Or was that the problem already?
Finally, it looks like David Chiu and Bevan Dufty's proposal to require building owners who abandon their buildings to still care for them is going to head out of this committee and to the full board of Supervisors. Pretty soon in this city, it will be tougher to abandon a building than a spouse.
Tuesday, August 11, 2 p.m. - Full Board of Supervisors
This meeting is a jigsaw that doesn't come together to make a coherent picture. Here are the pieces:
The bicycle plan is going to clear its second vote this week. I can't wait to find out what bicyclists are going to get angry about next!
As pointed out by the Chronicle, this is a big week for settled lawsuits in S.F., with five of them coming up for board approval, and two of those five alone costing the city more than $14 million (if approved).
By way of comparison, the city is entering into a contract with Western States Oil to get gas and diesel fuel, and it's only paying them $10 million.
On the other side of the scale -- by way of comparison -- the city will be "Appropriating $119,800,000 of proceeds from debt for wastewater system improvements at the Public Utilities Commission for FY 2009-2010 and 2010-2011."
Just so you know where your money's going: water, lawsuits, and oil. In that order.
Three commission and board appointments on tap today: Recreation and Parks; Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board; Civil Service Commission. I don't care either.
How about hate speech: Do you care about hate speech? Because the entire progressive coalition plus the swing votes (Dufty and Maxwell) has authored a resolution "Urging the Federal Communications Commission to conduct a comprehensive investigation on hate speech in the media and to update the 1993 report on the Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes."
Really, guys? Really? We get the eight of you in a room, and you use your veto-proof supermajority to do this? Not to block the worst MUNI budget since Willie Brown blew the entire J-Church line's maintenance fund on hats? To "urge" the FCC to investigate hate speech in the media? This is what you do?
Okay, but don't come running to me the next time your constituents complain about the trains not running, or about their houses being foreclosed on so that Willie Brown has space to build a giant shoe rack.
As a member of the media in question, can I just say that your incompetence actually makes me want to hate more? Because it does.
Also ... serious warning here ... have you heard what some of your supporters have been saying about the Catholic Church recently? I'm not saying they're wrong, but I am saying that maybe people who use strong words ought not to be urging the FCC to tamp down on language. Any speech code you encourage can and will be used against you by bigots.
Anyway ...
As a last gasp for the meeting, it looks like the Mortgage Modification Consultants bill and the "We oppose BART surcharges for airport workers" bill are getting fast-tracked to the big leagues. So, we get to have those voted on twice this week -- if you can stand that much excitement.
I'm done. You done? Okay, let's move on.
Wednesday, Aug 12, 11 a.m. - Budget & Finance Committee
Hokey-smokes is this a big-money meeting.
Here's some figures.
• $194,279,046 for a new Public Utilities Commission headquarters.• $25,000,000 for emergency backup generators at San Francisco General Hospital
• $18,712,576 for the SFMTA to rehabilitate 16 Presidential Conference Committee (PCC) historic streetcars
• $29,150,000 for TransLink fare collection equipment and support services.
That's more than a quarter of a billion dollars. I'm sure there's a good reason why the PUC headquarters has to cost $200 million. I'm sure there is. But, unable to remember it, I'm left wondering: Has that been adequately priced out? No doubt I'll come to my senses soon.
Hey, funny thing: I remember writing about those SF General emergency generators ... oh ... has it been a year now already? Eighteen months? Huh. I really would have thought they'd have up and replaced them by now, what with it being an emergency no-bid contract and all. Of course, that's what I thought back then, too.
Anywho ...
There will also be a hearing updating us on the city's budget, so, yeah, that's still going on. You thought it was dead, but, no. There's lots of technical follow-up to be done, it's true -- but I think the more significant factor is that John Avalos and David Chiu just can't stop returning to the scene of the crime.
Another hearing will update us on how the city school district plans to use all that Rainy Day Fund money the city gave it. Did you know there are schools in S.F.? For kids? We give the schools, like, money and stuff to keep the kids from hanging around all the good coffee shops during the day. And to try to teach them not to use hate speech.
It doesn't work: Those kids write filthy, hateful graffiti on the historic trolley cars that MUNI pays $19 million for. Someone should really teach those kids how to spell.
