Posts Tagged ‘districts’

Corrupt Twitterloin Update: “Beyond Chron” “Editor” and SFGov Contractor Randy Shaw Strongly Objects to SFPD’s Redistricting Plan

Wednesday, January 28th, 2015

So, taxpayer spending on the ineffective Tenderloin Housing Clinic empire is up 2000% the past couple decades and what has that gotten us? Why don’t other cities do things the way we do in the Tenderloin – why is SF so unique in this regard. Why doesn’t Randy Shaw lay out how his operations benefit the city of San Francisco? No, not interested in doing that, Randy? Oh, but you sometimes spend your time threatening to sue the San Francisco Chronicle, the very “Chron” you’ve promised to get us “Beyond?” And you’re too busy singing the praises of San Francisco’s weakest-willed Mayor since … forever? OK fine.

Let’s check in on the latest in the Twitterloin*

“SF’S FOCUS TURNS TO CRIME”

One assumes this is Randy Shaw being aspirational, as they say. For example, here’s Randy Shaw from 2007: “By the summer of 2008, going “uptown” in San Francisco will mean heading to the Tenderloin.” But that’s not what uptown meant in 2008. And it’s not what it means now in 2015. So that’s just an example why whenever Randy Shaw says something, it’s not true. Randy Shaw says that the focus of the entire City and County of San Francisco is now turning to the topic of crime in 2015 – that means that the focus of the entire City and County of San Francisco is NOT now turning to the topic of crime in 2015, it’s just what Randy wants people to believe, for some reason.

“San Francisco’s economy is booming. But many are upset about crime. This is particularly true in the Tenderloin, where residents, merchants, workers, and thousands of children confront public drug dealing on a daily basis.

Public drug dealing from the residents of the residential hotels promoted by … Randy Shaw.

Why does the city allow such flagrantly illegal activities?

I don’t know, like why does the city throw $20 million a year down the Randy Shaw rathole?

After all, the Tenderloin is finally bouncing back from fifty years of decline and there are rising expectations for its future.

Again, if Randy Shaw says that the Twitterloin is bouncing back, that means that’s what he says all the time, going back decades, and it means that it’s not true. You’ll just have to take his word about expectations, and who has them.

It used to be that the Tenderloin attracted drug dealers because the city allowed them to do business there. It was a crime “containment zone,” with the entire criminal justice system backing a policy which forced low-income residents to walk down unsafe streets.

Well, that’s still kind of the case now, right Randy?

Mayor Ed Lee made it clear after taking office that the Tenderloin’s days as a crime containment zone were over.

But it’s still a containment zone, right? Hey, did I mention about how much money the Randy Shaw Twitterloin empire gets from SFGov every year? What does he do for that money? Wouldn’t we be better off just stopping giving him all that money and starting over? And shouldn’t City workers be doing Randy’s job?

And his intervention, along with resident activism, resulted in the biggest positive transformation of any single block in San Francisco.

So isn’t this where Randy Shaw should mention that he’s a government contractor from Berkeley and that’s why he sings the praises of who(m)ever is the Mayor of San Francisco? No, OK. And BTW, the unit block of Turk hasn’t really been “transformed.” It’s just where the Randy Shaw empire has a storefront, that’s why it’s such a BFD to RS.

This was through the elimination of over 100 drug dealers who used to work daily on the first block of Turk Street.

Elimination? Were they all executed by Ed Lee? Oh no, they’re still around, and some of them live in hotels of the Randy Shaw empire? OK fine.

On January 28 at 6pm at the Kelly Cullen Community Center at 220 Golden Gate, the Police Commission holds a hearing on proposed new boundaries for the Tenderloin police district. The Police Commission faces a choice between two very different visions for the Tenderloin’s future. In the vision backed by nearly all residents, merchants, workers and community stakeholders, the new boundaries will keep the Tenderloin together and target police resources where public drug dealing regularly occurs.

All right, now here’s real life: Most residents of the Tenderloin, nearly all of them, aren’t objecting to the SFPD redistricting itself as it sees fit. And I’m not sure what Randy means when he talks of the new boundaries. The new boundaries are what the SFPD is proposing, it’s what Randy Shaw super doesn’t like.

In the vision embodied in the SFPD’s proposal, the national Uptown Tenderloin Historic District is divided among three police districts.

But there isn’t any “national Uptown Tenderloin Historic District,” not IRL. That’s just a designation that Randy Shaw wanted.

It takes historic Tenderloin SROs like the Hotel Union at 811 Geary, the Hartland Hotel at 909 Geary, and the nearby Elk Hotel at 670 Eddy, and puts them outside the Tenderloin police district.

So what, Randy? How does it matter? Hey, don’t you live in Berkeley?

At the same time that core blocks in the Tenderloin are excluded from the “Tenderloin” station, the new district adds shoplifting-heavy Westfield Cente. It is located at 5th and Market, well outside the Tenderloin. The new “Tenderloin” station includes Market Street as far down as 3rd Street and  continues to Market and Van Ness before heading south as far as the intersection of Mission and South Van Ness.

What’s the obsession with maps? Why should the SFPD concern itself with what a Berkeley resident thinks about maps?

Critics of the SFPD plan understand that it is only a draft, and that the January 28 hearing is designed for public feedback.

It’s what the cops want, so shouldn’t they get it? Is there some sort of constitutional issue here? I don’t think so. So you let the cops do the job as they see fit. We want the cops to perform well, right? So why micromanage them? The “draft” map is exactly what they want, right? Oh, Gentle Reader, you have a beef with the SFPD over Some Other Issue? Well that’s different than redistricting, right? Let’s say you don’t want the SFPD to institute an unconstitutional Stop and Frisk program, you know, like the one that Mayor Ed Lee proposed after coming back from New York. Opposing something like Stop and Frisk is not micromanaging, not at all. But nitpicking over district borders is.

Because Tenderloin folks (myself included) were not paying attention in 2007, we allowed Little Saigon (Larkin from Eddy to O’Farrell) to be excluded from the Tenderloin district boundaries drawn that year.

Randy Shaw, you isn’t “Tenderloin folk,” you is longtime mansion-dwelling Berkeley Hills folk, right? Who cares what the borders of the Tenderloin are considered to be? Why does it matter?

If Westfield Center joins the still under construction Market Street Place in the Tenderloin District, the crime priorities of Abercrombie & Fitch, Nordstrom’s and J Crew will prevail over drug dealing on Leavenworth Street.

Well that’s what Randy Shaw says, but it’s not true.

Police will not ignore powerful retail interests whose sales taxes fuel the economy in order to protect seniors and kids walking on Leavenworth Street from drug dealing.

Is this what they call “framing?” IDK. It’s something, anyway. Are there a lot of cops patrolling the malls in SF? I don’t think so.

No police chief is going to throw big national retail chains under the bus by refusing to allocate police to arrest shoplifters. 

Or local chains, or convenience stores – pretty much if you call the SFPD to haul away shoplifters, they’ll go and haul them away, right?

Randy Shaw is Editor of Beyond Chron. His book, The Tenderloin: Sex, Crime and Resistance in the Heart of San Francisco, will be out this spring.

Oh, there’s sex in the Twitterloin? And there’s crime in the Twitterloin? Wow, thanks for writing the book, Randy. I can hardly wait for it…

*And that’s a New York Times-approved word. How will Randy Shaw occupy his time in the future, will he start up a Beyond Times newspaper and install himself as Editor-For-Life?

I Don’t Know, Supervisor Scott Wiener’s Plan to Rein-In NIMBYish Historic Districts Sounds All Right to Me

Thursday, December 8th, 2011

Here’s what showed up in the email, below.

Is this like preaching to the converted or something? I mean, why on Earth would we want more historic districts in San Francisco? Aren’t they, and their boosters, part of the problem?

Anyway, here’s the spiel, choose or lose:

“SPEAK UP NOW FOR PRESERVATION IN SAN FRANCISCO!

On Thursday, December 8, the Planning Commission will consider comprehensive revisions to Articles 10 and 11 of the Planning Code recommended by the Historic Preservation Commission, in addition to a series of controversial amendments introduced by Supervisor Scott Wiener.

Attend the Planning Commission hearing:

When: Thursday, December 8, 12:00 p.m. (Agenda Item #9)
Where: City Hall, Commission Chambers, Room 400
Why: To voice concern over Supervisor Wiener’s proposed amendments that would roll back protections for historic resources in San Francisco.

Email the Planning Commission: If you are unable to attend the hearing, please email the Commissioners (with a copy to Desiree Smith at dsmith@sfheritage.org):

Christina Olague c_olague@yahoo.com
Ron Miguel rm@well.com
Michael J. Antonini Wordweaver21@aol.com
Gwyneth Borden plangsf@gmail.com
Kathrin Moore mooreurban@aol.com
Hisashi Sugaya hs.commish@yahoo.com
Rodney Fong rodney@waxmuseum.com

KEY POINTS

OPPOSE Supervisor Wiener’s amendments that would impose unique procedural hurdles on the designation of historic districts:

 Although only 11 local historic districts have been created in 45 years, Supervisor Wiener would require 66% owner support before community groups can nominate a historic district.

 The intent of Proposition J was to update Articles 10 and 11 to reflect best practices nationwide; the 66% owner consent threshold is a relic of the original ordinance adopted in 1967 and is out of step with widely-recognized preservation practice today.

 Other procedural hoops proposed by Supervisor Wiener, including a mandatory written vote or survey of all property owners, would make the process more costly and time-consuming.

 No other zoning changes in San Francisco are subject to similar owner consent requirements; historic districts should be treated the same as other neighborhood planning initiatives. OPPOSE Supervisor Wiener’s amendment to make compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards optional:

 The proposed language would effectively eliminate any minimum standards for the treatment of historic buildings in San Francisco. OPPOSE Supervisor Wiener’s amendment to exempt large classes of projects from historic review altogether, including downtown housing development projects:

 The proposed language is a misguided attempt to exempt an entire class of projects from historic review, clearing the path for demolition, insensitive alterations and new construction regardless of the significance of the structure or the surrounding historic district.

For further backgroud and to read Heritage’s past comment letters, go to sfheritage.org”

Tonight at 6:00 PM at Fort Mason: Your Chance to Speak at the Citizens Redistricting Commission Public Input Hearing

Monday, June 27th, 2011

Well, here’s your chance:

Citizens Redistricting Commission Public Input Hearing
Monday, June 27, 2011
Fort Mason Center, Cowell Theater
Entrance at Marina Blvd. and Buchanan Street
San Francisco, CA 94123
6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.

View the Live Broadcast – 6PM to 9PM

And don’t worry, no matter how it goes, everybody in San Francisco will be represented by a state Senator at all times…

The 14 members of your Citizens Redistricting Commission. Seated, left to right: Connie Galambos Malloy and Michael Ward. Standing, left to right: Jodie Filkins-Webber, Gabino Aguirre, Vincent Barabba, Michelle DiGuilo, Maria Blanco, Peter Yao, Cynthia Dai, Lilbert “Gil” Ontai, Jeanne Raya, Angelo Ancheta, Stanley Forbes and M. Andre Parvenu:

Click to expand
___________________________________________________________________

“The 14 member Independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission will hold a public input
meeting in San Francisco on June 27, 2011, from 6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. at the Fort Mason Center. The
Commission was created by California voters to draw state Congressional, Assembly, Senate and Board
of Equalization Districts.

“Public participation in drawing these districts is critical to ensuring that communities have the strongest
voice possible to express their preferences. When voters with similar interests are drawn into a district
together, their voices multiply giving them a greater opportunity to express their views, elect candidates
of their choice and hold their leaders accountable.”

Ever more deets, after the jump

(more…)

Your Independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission Wants to Hear From You on Saturday, May 21, 2011 in Oakland

Tuesday, April 26th, 2011

Your Citizens Redistricting Commission is avoiding San Francisco County (and Marin and San Mateo and Santa Clara, for some reason, for now, anyway) so you’ll have to hoof it over to Oaktown if you want to give them your 2 cents before they have the chance to turn California’s electoral districts upside-down.

And actually, they have a whole state tour going on these days. Deets below.

14 members of the Citizens Redistricting Commission. Seated, left to right: Connie Galambos Malloy and Michael Ward. Standing, left to right: Jodie Filkins-Webber, Gabino Aguirre, Vincent Barabba, Michelle DiGuilo, Maria Blanco, Peter Yao, Cynthia Dai, Lilbert “Gil” Ontai, Jeanne Raya, Angelo Ancheta, Stanley Forbes and M. Andre Parvenu:

Click to expand

First up is the meeting in Oakland and then the full sked, below:

Citizens Redistricting Commission – Public Input Hearing – Saturday, May 21, 2011

City Council Chambers – 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza – Oakland, CA 94612 – 2:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.

The 14 member Independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission will hold a public input meeting in Oakland on May 21, 2011, from 2:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.  The Commission was created by California voters to draw state Congressional, Assembly, Senate and Board of Equalization Districts.  Public participation in drawing these districts is critical to ensuring that communities have the strongest voice possible to express their preferences.  When voters with similar interests are drawn into a district together, their voices multiply giving them a greater opportunity to express their views, elect candidates of their choice and hold their leaders accountable.The Commission is taking testimony from local area residents before drawing its first round of draft maps which will be released in June.  Final district maps must be certified by the Commission and presented to the Secretary of State by August 15, 2011. Citizens wishing to provide testimony to the Commission can learn more about how to effectively present information by going to www.wedrawthelines.ca.gov .  To assist you in providing your presentation, we have developed a “Toolkit” which you will find on the home page under “Upcoming Events.”All public input hearings are ADA accessible.  Any person who wishes to request auxiliary aids or services, including translation, to participate in the hearing of the Commission, in accordance with State or Federal law, should contact Janeece Sargis at 1-866-356-5217 not later than five (5) business days before the noticed hearing date.”

Full Meetings/Hearings Schedule (April-August)

April Meetings/Hearings Schedule

May Meetings/Hearings Schedule

June Meetings/Hearings Schedule

July Meetings/Hearings Schedule

August Meetings/Hearings Schedule

Past Meetings

April Meetings/Hearings Schedule

March Meetings/Hearings

February Meetings/Hearings

The San Francisco Elections Commission Wants YOU to Serve on the Great 2011-2012 Redistricting Task Force

Monday, April 11th, 2011

Now I’ll tell you, all I know about electoral redistricting is on the state and Federal level. Like remember when Willie Brown cooked up a plan to have a Senate district go right down the middle of Castro Street back in the day as a kind of F to the U to any potential gay candidates (like Carole Migden) what might have opposed Willie Brown:

At a fundamental level, it’s a symbolic issue, and using Castro Street as a dividing line is really a slap in the face of the community,” said Paul Hogan, chair of the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club.”

Good times.

Or this purple thing Down South, crafted so that San Luis Obispo-type cowboys wouldn’t be in the same district as beach-side hippie types. It’s as narrow as 150 yards wide at high tide, our 23rd Congressional is:

Click to expand

Now don’t you want to get in on the fun? Well then answer the Call put out this AM by your City and County of San Francisco Elections Commission. Deets below.

Now I’ll tell you, I’d apply for this thing, you know, just to mess with peoples’ heads (by putting the houses of three sitting supes all in the same district, stuff like that) but it turns out that criterion #2 is “represent[ing] San Francisco’s diverse population.” And I’m the least diverse person you could possibly imagine so I’m DNQ’ed from the get-go.

But you, they’d love to have you.

All the deets:

THE ELECTIONS COMMISSION CALLS FOR APPLICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE REDISTRICTING TASK FORCE

What is redistricting?

Every ten years, the Federal Government conducts a census to determine the number of individuals living in the United States. After the census is completed, the Charter requires the Director of Elections to determine whether the existing supervisorial districts meet the legal requirements established by federal, state and local law. If the existing supervisorial districts no longer comply with these legal requirements, the Charter requires the Board of Supervisors to convene an Elections Task Force to redraw the supervisorial district lines. The process of redrawing the supervisorial district lines is known as redistricting. The Director of Elections has not yet made this determination (as of March 28, 2011), but in the event that he finds that the districts must be redrawn and if the Board of Supervisors convenes a task force, the Elections Commission wants to find outstanding candidates as quickly as possible.

How Does Redistricting Work?

If convened, the Elections Task Force will consist of nine members. The Mayor, the Board of Supervisors and the Elections Commission each appoint three members. These nine individuals work with City staff and outside consultants to determine how the supervisorial district lines should be redrawn so that the districts comply with the legal requirements established in federal, state and local law. As part of this process, the Elections Task Force holds multiple community hearings to receive input from the people of San Francisco. Throughout this process and based on community input, the Elections Task Force will make several changes to the existing supervisorial district lines. The Elections Task Force must present a final plan outlining the new supervisorial district lines to the Board of Supervisors in April 2012.

What are the legal requirements for supervisorial districts?

The members of the Elections Task Force must consider federal, state and local legal requirements when redrawing supervisorial district lines. For more on these legal requirements, please see http://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=270

What are the criteria for appointment to the task force?

Each of the three appointing authorities – the Mayor, the Board of Supervisors, and the Elections Commission – probably have different criteria. By unanimous approval at the March 16, 2011, meeting of the Elections Commission, it has selected the following minimum criteria for its three appointments. Applicants must:

(1) Be registered to vote in San Francisco and have voted in San Francisco at least once since January 1, 2006;
(2) Represent San Francisco’s diverse population;
(3) Have not been paid by a political campaign since January 1, 2006;
(4) Not currently a direct-hire employee of an elected official of the City and County of San Francisco;
(5) Have general knowledge of San Francisco’s neighborhoods and geography;
(6) Have flexible schedule for attending meetings; and
(7) Not have a conflict of interest that is prohibited under conflict laws applicable to other City officers.

How can I apply to be appointed by the Elections Commission?

It goes on and on…

(more…)