NOVEMBER 2004 NEWSLETTER

 

VICTORY! in San Francisco

San Francisco Tomorrow can celebrate victory here, regardless of how anyone feels about votes outside California.

SFT endorsed and supported candidates for six spots on the Board of Supervisors on November 2 – and all were elected: Jake McGoldrick in District 1, Aaron Peskin in District 3, Ross Mirkarimi in District 5, Sean Elsbernd in District 7, Tom Ammiano in District 7 and Gerardo Sandoval in District 11.

Most important is the fact that these victories continue neighborhood power on the Board of Supervisors – victories won against heavy spending by downtown interests whose ultimate goal is the end of district elections. District elections and public financing keep elected officials obligated only to the voters – rather than making them depend on donors of the big bucks needed to win citywide elections.

All SFT-endorsed candidates are committed to SFT’s urban environmental goals – including a new Transbay Terminal to bring all Bay Area transit together for speedy transfers – a downtown terminal that will also serve the Peninsula’s Caltrain and a future High Speed Rail from southern California. A November 2006 state ballot measure will seek funding for High Speed Rail, which will take you from downtown San Francisco to downtown Los Angeles in two hours and 45 minutes. Let’s organize now for HSR victory in 2006.

San Francisco Tomorrow, in fact, enthusiastically thanks all current members of the Board of Supervisors for moving ahead on the Transbay Terminal Project this year -- by approving its EIR and voting to take possession of land essential to rail lines to the Terminal. The unanimous vote came from incumbent Supervisors Michela Alioto-Pier, Fiona Ma, Matt Gonzalez, Chris Daly, Bevan Dufty, and Sophie Maxwell, in addition to McGoldrick, Peskin, Elsbernd, Ammiano and Sandoval.

DEFEAT of PROPOSITION A
Let us contrast the benefits of one measure against another. Proposition A on the San Francisco ballot, supported by San Francisco Tomorrow, would have given the City authority to borrow $200 million. These dollars would have helped build and renovate supportive and affordable housing. Housing is one of the top identified priorities of both citizens and experts.

Now let’s look at Proposition 71, the State measure that gives $6 billion to the biotech industry for stem cell research. Stem cell research is a long shot that may or may not cure anything. There is no guarantee that the medical research corporations who will benefit from this measure will repay the cost of the bonds. It has been argued that $340 million expended on biotech annually will toss too much money at too few projects that are now on the horizon. Additionally, there is no guarantee that if a medical breakthrough is found, the benefits will reach the average person affected by a life threatening disease. Will they able to afford the medication or procedures?

In another way, the big difference between Proposition A and Proposition 71 boils down to money. The biotech industry spent $2.7 million to put Proposition 71 on the ballot and then contributed an additional $25 million more to convince the voting public of the need to pass this measure. We need also to consider why any government agency should be subsidizing private medical research without a commensurate benefit to the taxpayers that fund this research.

Building the supportive and affordable housing that Prop A promised would have provided shelter for local workers and reduced commuting; furthermore, a case could be made that building this type of housing would also reduce crime and the need for medical care.

TRANSBAY TERMINAL/CALTRAIN DOWNTOWN EXTENSION UPDATE
The Caltrain Downtown Extension and Transbay Terminal rebuilding took a major step forward on September 28, 2004.

Thanks in large part to the persuasions of transit advocates, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to acquire the property known as 80 Natoma Street, using eminent domain if necessary. A developer/real estate operator claimed that he was going to erect a 52-story building on this empty lot that is accessible only through two South of Market alleys. The big problem was this building would have been directly over the route of the Caltrain Downtown Extension to Transbay Terminal and would have effectively prevented its construction if built as he proposed. Extensive efforts to reach reasonable agreements -- simply buying the land, a land swap with another parcel, timing construction so both projects are done concurrently -- were fruitless.

Activists who worked on this effort can give themselves a pat on the back, since they were up against some high powered, undoubtedly well paid, professional lobbyists and lawyers. However, we may not be completely out of the woods yet; several lawsuits are kicking around (challenging the certification of the Environmental Impact Report).
Just a few days ago, the developer of 80 Natoma Street got the Building Inspection Commission to lift the stop work order that had been in effect for this project. Many feel it is a ploy to increase the price the City would have to pay for this empty lot. It will probably fail, as the City is now proceeding to take possession of the property.

Historic Buildings in the Way Also important to consider are several buildings on Second Street, Howard, and Natoma Alley which have historical significance. These are located where the Caltrain underground route turns from Second Street toward the Transbay Terminal. The feasibility of underpinning those buildings and tunneling under them is being studied. The Caltrain line will be built by tunneling, i.e. - not breaking the street surface where it is completely under Second Street; but where the tracks leave Second Street and start to fan out on approach to the terminal, this will be more difficult, and requires further study.

There are still many hoops to jump through. The EIS/EIR for the Transbay Terminal/Caltrain Down-town Extension/ Redevelopment Area is now being reviewed by the Federal Transit Administration. It is hoped that a Record of Decision will be issued before the end of the year. This will give the project more status and free up funds for it.
Key to the funding of these projects, and redevelopment of the land formerly occupied by freeway structures, is the transfer of that land to the city. Revenues from the redevelopment of the land will provide a substantial part of the funding for these projects. Other sources of funds include bridge tolls, sales taxes, and other regional, State, and Federal funds, and the high speed rail bonds that will be on the November, 2006 ballot. High speed rail bonds are planned to provide only a comparatively small percentage of the total cost of these projects, and with a project this large, every funding source is important. Should the bonds fail (and it's difficult to predict their fate so far in advance), the situation would not be fatal; the chances of finding other funding are good.
If all goes well, construction would begin in 2006, with trains operating into the new terminal by 2013.
The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (the Caltrain governing board) is currently completing plans for the electrification of Caltrain. The coordination of schedules for this and the Downtown Extension is a potential problem that must be worked out as well.

The Concourse Garage Brawl
Six years after the Golden Gate Park Revitalization Act passed (aka The Garage) major decisions concerning the future of the Music Concourse area and all of Golden Gate Park are still unresolved. Will traffic in the Park increase or decrease? Will private autos take precedence over pedestrians, bicycles, and transit users? What of our history will be preserved?

One or two entrances to the garage? Proposition J clearly stated, and the courts upheld, that all entrances to the garage must have dedicated exclusive access originating outside the park. Garage sponsors propose widening, to four moving lanes, MLK Drive from Lincoln Way and Ninth Avenue to the Concourse, the curbside lanes being ‘dedicated’ to garage traffic. The problem is that functionally these lanes must also serve Muni, bicycles, and all right turn traffic to East Middle Drive and the Concourse. Previously proposed bike lanes on MLK are wiped out with this plan.

The only clear way to implement Prop J is to have solely one garage entrance at 10th and Fulton on the north. Despite the cries of the North Park Neighbors, the traffic study in the Environmental Impact Report shows that traffic in the area near the north entrance will actually be reduced when the garage is completed because 10th Avenue will be closed to cross-park traffic. The four-lane proposal is in the fast lane, scheduled for approval at a special Concourse Authority hearing Tuesday 11/16 with Rec and Park Commission final buy off Thursday 11/18. But the SF Sups are to steps into the mess Wednesday 11/17 at their Finance and Audits Committee.

Commuter cross-park traffic in the Con-course or not? In order to fulfill the basic objective of Prop J, to create a Concourse-area Pedestrian Oasis, SFT, the Sierra Club, and many other environmental groups believe that traffic in the Concourse must be removed or at least substantially reduced. A proposal to allow only Muni to cross the Concourse is supposed to be under consideration by the Concourse Authority, but it has not been discussed for over a year now. Whether private autos will be allowed to circle the Concourse for drop off at the institutions has also failed to be put back on the Concourse Authority agenda.

Traffic counts taken before and after the Concourse area was closed for construction show overall traffic in the eastern end of Golden Gate Park reduced by 30% because the shortcut through the Concourse was removed. The Parks Master Plan, the City’s General Plan, and Proposition J all require that traffic be reduced in the Park. Why can’t the through traffic ban imposed by the construction period be continued after construction ends? The neighborhoods on both sides of the Park are enjoying reduced traffic. Nothing is logical when the will of the Museums for unimpeded auto access to their doors is involved.

Green Street Medians - Cleaner Bay
Mayor Newsom brought up a lot of new policy initiatives in his State of the City address on October 21st. One that we found particularly interesting was his commitment to “greening” San Francisco’s major streets by planting green medians. We just want to remind the Mayor that these green strips can serve more than just an aesthetic purpose. Properly designed and maintained, median green strips can be used to divert stormwater from the City’s combined sewer system. During moderate to heavy rainstorms, stormwater overwhelms the sewage transport system around the City, leading overflows of combined stormwater and raw sewage into San Francisco Bay. In an average year, these overflows total about 900 million gallons.

More green, less brown – it’s a win-win situation!

San Franciscans Flood Florida
As a happy resident of San Francisco and California since 1949, I’ve never thought our competing Sunshine State was worth a visit. But there comes a time in life when an impending disaster demands an extra effort. So in late October my friends and I bought plane tickets and headed for Florida. Our motive was to see that every resident there who wanted to vote could do so and not be turned away from the polls. And to urge those who might vote our way to be sure to vote. We weren’t the only ones; there were many others from the Bay Area in Florida, Nevada, Ohio and Pennsylvania working for the same goals.

In Orlando, we joined San Francisco friends, a retired city planner and his wife, who had arrived six weeks earlier. We were put to work at once. Our 10-hour days were spent telephoning voters, handing out fliers at flea markets, grocery stores, and "early voting" polling places, holding up signs on busy street corners, entering voter data into computers, preparing kits for door-to-door distribution and knocking on doors and talking with voters.

We talked with some who were threatening to move out of the U. S. if things didn’t go right (that’s left) on November 2. We said: Why don’t you just come to the Bay Area and California? That’s the place to be.

Back home, we aren’t ready to rest. It’s time now to organize and work harder to try to keep our environment from being damaged further by the forces that during the past four years have eased pollution controls for power plants and factories, rejected new fuel-efficiency standards, built more freeways instead of financing more rail and public transit, sped up logging in national forests, rolled back protection of 58 million acres from roads and development, lifted a ban on snowmobiles in parks, proposed 51,000 new natural gas wells, removed limits on coal producers for dumping mountaintop fill in streams, reduced EPA fines on polluters by 64%, and replaced scientists who don’t support the new order.
The November 2 election results map shows why our national leaders have rejected the Kyoto global warming treaty. As the Arctic and Antarctic melt and the sea level rises, they can happily say goodbye to those pesky blue states on each coast. Of course, this means the end of coastal Texas and Florida, but they know something has to be sacrificed.
Jane