Y
-
Developers' future conundrum?
esterday, SF Weekly reported that a trove of e-mails and text messages reveal Supervisor Scott Wiener's resolution calling for additional analysis of the "Waterfront Height Limit Right-to-Vote Act" was proposed and initially drafted by foes of the measure, who were then deployed by Wiener to lobby his colleagues on behalf of his resolution.
"Colleagues, I know you know: It has become a bit of a
thing here in City Hall," Wiener moments ago told his fellow supes prior to a vote that never came. "The proponents of the ballot measure have been advocating intensely this resolution not be adopted. I have to say, I find it odd that anyone, whether you're supporting or opposing a ballot measure, would object to the public receiving more information about that ballot measure."
Knowing he could not receive the requisite unanimous vote to advance this resolution, Wiener withdrew it. The legislation was shunted to Rules Committee for a possible March 20 meeting. Wiener had hoped to send it to the Land Use Committee -- which he chairs -- but that motion was defeated, 7-4. The supes voted 8-3 to move the item to Rules.
Wiener's stalled resolution called for "an impartial, multi-departmental study" of the waterfront initiative's potential impact, above and beyond the normal study undertaken on behalf of the Department of Elections. E-mails obtained by height-limit backers via a public records request make clear the resolution was suggested by Gabriel Metcalf, the executive director of the development-friendly non-profit SPUR, who was then elicited by Wiener's office to pen an early draft of the resolution.
San Francisco Giants vice-president and general counsel Jack Bair provided Wiener "an explanation of the measure drafted for your convenience." He also provided Wiener talking points to justify and defend his own resolution: "The attack by the measure's proponents on Supervisor Wiener's request for information -- a request specifically authorized by state law -- is a thinly veiled attempt to limit the public's access to information and to prevent an informed discussion of the measure."
The Giants, who hope to build a high-rise development behind AT&T Park,
are underwriting a lawsuit challenging the legality of Waterfront Height Limit Right-to-Vote Act, which would force them to subject their project to the whims of the electorate.
On Feb. 11, Wiener texted Bair that it was high time to start pushing his resolution:
"Now is the time to start lobbying. I've heard that eric mar is voting against. I suggest calling Jane, Norman, Malia, and London."
Bair replied: "Okay, I will work with Gabe and others."
Wiener yesterday told SF Weekly that "nothing untoward happened here," again questioning his opponents' desire to limit the public's access to information and prevent an informed discussion of the measure.
