Monday, Aug 17
11 a.m. - Public Safety Committee
A lot's happened to the Public Safety Committee since the last time I wrote about it -- and there's one thing I just don't understand.
Ross Mirkarimi used to be the chair of the Public Safety Committee, and he was exceptional at pulling the many tangled threads of San Francisco's attempts to keep its citizens safe from crime (the better to lecture us about not smoking) into an organized weave. City crime mattered to him both as a humanitarian and as a politician: His district includes parts of the Western Addition.
But then he was replaced as Public Safety chairman by David Campos, a freshman legislator. The justification for this was that Campos, who had previously been a member of the city's Police Commission, has a lot of experience dealing with public safety agencies in San Francisco.
This is true -- although in my experience the only people who actually listen to the Police Commission are people who want to be on the Police Commission, because they want to impress the mayor and subsequently be given a $167,000-a-year job whose sole qualification is "Be extremely concerned about the world's ills."
So Campos replaces Mirkarimi. Got it?
But now, Board President David Chiu has shuffled the city committee deck and replaced David Campos with ... David Chiu.
Say what?
David Chiu is an accomplished man: He is both a former criminal prosecutor with the San Francisco District Attorney's Office and a civil rights attorney at the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights -- so he has lots of experience working to overcome the civil rights violations he justified.
(This gives him something in common with Gavin Newsom, who, since about-facing on much of his agenda, has lots of experience justifying the policies he's worked to overcome.)
But it doesn't explain the question I have, which is: What happened in the last six months to make David Chiu more qualified to chair the Public Safety Committee than David Campos?
If Campos -- who now isn't even on the Public Safety Committee -- wasn't the best person for the job six months ago, why was he given the position? And if he was the best person back then, then why is he being taken off it now?
I suppose someone could make the case that they are both equally qualified -- but that's the kind of bullshit answer that a lawyer like David Chiu would pick apart faster than you can say "cross examination."
Maybe David Campos got burned out on criminal justice issues? Doubtful -- he spent all that time on the Police Commission, after all, and came out wanting more.
Perhaps Chiu discovered a sudden and intense love for law enforcement issues? No, that would involve David Chiu being spontaneous -- something he would never do until there is firmly established case law on it.
After careful consideration, I have two explanations for the committee chair switch:
I have a hard time figuring out which is true. They're both so damn plausible.
Incidentally, there's just one item on the agenda today: a hearing on citywide crime issues.
It was called by David Campos.
1 p.m. - Land Use and Economic Development Committee
There's just one item on this committee agenda to. But it's a doozy.
A residential rent ordinance, proposed by Eric Mar (or Chris Daly in an Eric Mar mask) that would "prohibit owner move-in evictions of families with children; and changing the definition of 'disabled' tenants protected from owner move-in evictions."
According to documentation included with the proposal, somewhere between 18 and 45 families with children were evicted by owners seeking to live in their properties last year. (The vagueness of the number is because no one's really been keeping track).
Wow. Look, Eric -- I really appreciate what you're trying to do here, and it's a good cause and all ... but ... the line has to be drawn somewhere. I can't help but think that if a person owns property and wants to live in it, that they should get to. Otherwise, what is property for?
More to the point: No one should be forced to be a landlord if they don't want to be. It's one thing to say a landlord can't evict "undesirable" tenants simply for being undesirable, or replace them with the "kind of people" he likes better. It's another thing to say that someone who wants to stop being a landlord and live in their own property can't.
In San Francisco, of course, good intentions count for more than good laws, so you can expect tearful public hearings filled with sound and sentiment, signifying nothing.
It's almost like we don't think these things through.
Tuesday, Aug. 18
11 a.m. - Government Audit and Oversight Committee
Once again, there's only one item on the committee's agenda. It's almost like we're phoning in the things we're not thinking through.
Even worse, you can't watch: This hearing is a closed session so that the committee can hear a briefing from the City Attorney on the proposed State Constitutional Initiative requiring a two-thirds vote to establish local public electricity providers.
It's a pity I can't attend the briefing, because I'm sure the legal arguments are very (yawn) interesting.
My question about this issue isn't exactly a legal one, but it's one that the backers of this constitutional amendment haven't satisfactorily answered yet: In exactly what way is democracy better served by limiting the power of municipalities to provide electricity to their citizens?
Long answer: well, you see, electricity is a commodity, and when the government provides commodities that the free enterprise system can also provide it limits the ability of enterprising people to compete for the opportunity to move goods and services around the economy, thereby reducing the generation of wealth for private citizens. Without the additional wealth generation created by the competition of energy commodities on the free market, the total economic pie (the economy is a pie) will shrink, thus reducing the total social good.
You see. Also, something about Milton Friedman, and how your mother is a socialist for offering lemonade to the neighborhood kids for free when a private investor could have done it so much more efficiently. I've seen your mother's birth certificate: She was born in Kenya.
Short answer: it doesn't. Democracy is in no way enhanced by limiting the ability of municipalities to provide energy to their citizens. Given the recent performance of energy utilities, it's doubtful that efficiency is served by limiting governments' ability to get in the game, either.
I will admit however, given the performance of our city government on almost any issue in which efficiency is prized, that if we are to have government-run power in San Francisco, I would prefer it to be run by the government of Sweden.
They seem so competent.
Is that an option? Could we get that on the ballot?
2 p.m. - Full Board of Supervisors
This meeting could be more boring, but the Supervisors would have to work at it -- and they don't seem to be working very much this week.
Most items are repeats -- finally voting recent legislation through and approving grants and lawsuits and blah blah blah.
There is a measure "Reaffirming the Board of Supervisors' support for the expeditious completion of the Mexican Museum Project at the Yerba Buena Garden site" that has an un-vetoable supermajority.
Can I just say it's beautiful how politicians from across the political spectrum can get together, despite their philosophical differences and personal dislikes of one another, to pander?
That's all the government for this week, folks -- and it's all the government for the next three weeks, too. The Supervisors are in recess until after Sept. 8 ... suspiciously, the same day that everyone gets back from Burning Man.
Hmmmmm.
Have you ever wondered if some of the supervisors have more interesting personal lives than they let on?
Me neither.
