The HANC Board wanted to include its endorsements in last month’s issue of the Voice, as voting began the same day we mailed our May issue.  We did not dig deeply enough into Proposition D, “Office of Victim and Witness Rights.”  The only opposition in the voter guide was from one individual.  We should have paid more attention:  “This measure would do absolutely nothing to reduce crime . . . Nothing prevents City departments that already provide victim and witness services from coordinating better. . . . We don’t need new City Departments, unnecessary spending . . . We should be using existing resources and oversight mechanisms more effectively.”

According to the League of Pissed Off Voters, “This proposition looks suspiciously like an attempt to wrest power from the District Attorney’s office by placing some vaguely “law and order” sounding measure on the same ballot as the DA recall. Unsurprisingly, the DA’s office has had a similar and well-functioning domestic violence victim support program for years. Also unsurprisingly, this measure was put on the ballot with no hearing or input from family courts by Supervisor Catherine Stefani - who is openly angling for the DA appointment should the Chesa Boudin recall prove successful. Can’t we just fund the existing free legal aid program for domestic violence victims- why does this need to be a charter amendment? “

The Ballot Simplification Committee Digest in the Voter Guide states that “The Office [of Victim and Witness Rights] would introduce an ordinance . . .” to establish a pilot program to provide free legal services, and “The Office would seek to establish” a permanent program to provide free legal services.  Any supervisor can introduce an ordinance.  There is no need for a department to be set up to do so.

Read more ...

We have stated our position on recalls numerous times over the past year (the October, 2021 Voice: https://www.hanc-sf.org/24-home/643-what-are-recalls-all-about , the January 2022 Voice:  https://www.hanc-sf.org/24-home/664-hanc-opposes-politcally-motivated-recalls , in the February, 2022 Voice: https://www.hanc-sf.org/24-home/672-january-meeting-recap-tim-redmond-s-presentation-on-history-of-recalls , and in our ballot argument in support of Proposition C  in the June 2022 election, in the April Voice: https://www.hanc-sf.org/24-home/683-hanc-submits-ballot-argument-supporting-recall-reform ).

We oppose recalls for various reasons.  Foremost, they can be used by a minority in a low-turnout election to overturn the higher-turnout election they didn’t win.  Recalls are expensive.  Recalls undermine the independence of elected officials.  In San Francisco, recalls place more power in the hands of the Mayor.

For these reasons, HANC’s position is that recalls should be used only when an elected official should be impeached, but the legislature fails to act.  Recalls should be used for corruption, malfeasance, or graft, but not for differences of opinion or policy disagreements. 

By Christin Evans, HANC Board

Didn’t we *just* have an election?!?   Yes, HANC will be discussing ‘How the Haight voted’ in the April election in the same meeting we discuss key measures in the forthcoming June election!   Strap in because here comes election number 3 of 4 this year!

We have invited proponents of both Propositions E and F to HANC’s May 12th meeting which will be conducted 7-9pm via Zoom - just in time for when the vote-by-mail ballots slide into your mail slot.

Proposition E is the Behested Payments measure. “E for Ethics!” is the campaign slogan. The measure comes hot on the heels of the Nuru corruption scandal, one chapter of which former DPW head Mohammad Nuru had solicited contributions from Recology via the nonprofit San Francisco Parks Alliance.  Those funds were then used for merchandise for staff and for a departmental party.  This all happened at the same time Nuru oversaw the rates Recology could charge for garbage collection.  These “behested” payments were actually not prohibited by law (they were required to be reported though), but if E passes they will no longer be allowed.  The language precludes elected officials, department heads and commissioners from soliciting funds from any party with city business before them.  Five supervisors have signed the proponents' argument (Peskin, Preston, Walton, Chan and Mar) and three have opposed it (Stefani, Melgar and Mandelman) saying the measure's language is overreaching.  

Read more ...

By Richard Ivanhoe, HANC Board

The two panel members at our April meeting, Chris Arvin and Jason Henderson, were a wealth of information.  Unfortunately, nobody from SFMTA was in attendance.

Chris Arvin began with a number of reasons why MUNI is slow at restoring service post-Covid:  operating funding for MUNI has decreased from $200 million to $50 million; the Mayor’s position is no new taxes on transportation, MUNI has difficulty finding drivers because Prop G (2010), a union-busting measure, lowered wages for starting operators, and increased the time for their wages to rise. 

Measurements have shown that it takes the 7-Haight longer to travel the length of Haight Street since stop signs were replaced with traffic signals.  The 43-Masonic is scheduled to return to its full route through the Presidio and to Fort Mason in July.  The 21 is also scheduled to return in July, but will only run to Market and Grove.  The 6-Parnassus is now also scheduled to return in July, but only after voices were raised about SFMTA's failure to schedule its return.

Citywide, MUNI is at about 54% of its pre-Covid boardings.  The 7 is at 74% (this higher percentage could be due to the suspension of the 6).

Jason Henderson spoke about congestion in Hayes Valley—Haight Street transit is often stuck behind double-parked vehicles, and the transit lane stops shy of Buchanan.  The State has billions of dollars, but no transit plan or push from transit agencies.  Octavia is backed up both from Citywide and regional traffic (which is more than a local issue) as well as by gig traffic (Uber, Lyft, delivery vehicles, UCSF shuttles). 

Read more ...

Here are the final maps for San Francisco and for District 5 approved by the San Francisco Redistricting Task Force:

Although the City Charter seems to indicate that these new districts go into effect with the next Supervisorial election (which will be in November), the City Attorney and the Board of Supervisors have taken the position that they went into effect immediately.

We plan to discuss Redistricting, and its effect on the Haight-Ashbury, at our June meeting.

By Richard Ivanhoe, HANC Board

Like San Francisco, California has a Redistricting Commission, whose function is to redraw the State’s political map based on the 2020 census.  Unlike San Francisco’s Redistricting Commission, the State’s final maps and report were issued in December, 2021. These affect San Francisco.

The boundaries of our Federal Congressional district remain the same, but because California lost one representative in the last census, we are now in Congressional District 11, and no longer in District 12.  We remain in California Senate District 11 (not to be confused with Federal Senators—our two Federal Senators represent the entire State).

Read more ...

By Calvin Welch, HANC Board

The broadly supported push to close Kennedy Drive to cars  attempts to address the concern over access to and within the park by suggesting various auto ( opening the deYoung parking garage to park visitors) and shuttle bus "solutions"- both dependent on greenhouse gas producing  internal combustion engines -that only partially address the issue.  Not discussed is a public transit solution which in a transit first city oddly places transit  not last but so far, not at all.

As a "front line" neighborhood to Kennedy Drive, the Haight-Ashbury has a special interest in the issue.  Unless an effective solution for non-car access is created the great bulk of non-local visitors to the park will drive their cars, especially from other parts of the City and the wider Bay region as they do now.  What a "car free JFK" will mean for us in the Haight-Ashbury (and Inner Sunset and Inner Richmond) given no effective non- car access alternative, will be  a "more car" neighborhood, as cars will circle our streets looking for parking.

We need a transit alternative to car visitors to Golden Gate Park.

Currently there are seven transit lines that go to Golden Gate Park: the 5, 7, 18, 28, 33, 44 and 66.  An additional line, the 21, while slated to return from Covid shutdown, still has not yet begin service to the north side of the park. That sounds like a lot, but closer inspection shows just how underserved the Park is by public transit. Five of the seven lines (and eventually the 21) only serve the edge of the park- the 5,7, 18, 33 and 66, and only one, the 5,  goes the entire length of the Park on the north side. The 7 turns south at 25th Ave., the 33 turns north at Arguello and the 66 has but one stop that borders the park, its last, at Haight and Stanyan.

Only 2 lines, the 28 and 44, actually enter the park, but only the 44 actually has stops inside Golden Gate Park as the 28 travels though the park without a stop.

Read more ...

By Richard Ivanhoe, HANC Board

HANC’s April meeting will focus on MUNI:  When will the 6 and 21 lines be restored?  What are MUNI’s long range plans to address both its budget needs and the reduction in downtown activity?  With the closure of JFK Drive, how can MUNI get people from other parts of the City out of their cars and into Golden Gate Park?

Approximately two years ago, MUNI shut down most of its bus and streetcar lines due to the Coronavirus pandemic, reducing service from approximately 70 routes to 17.  Service restoration has been incremental. 

In July, 2021, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution calling upon SFMTA to “reinstate all transit lines and restore pre-Covid service hours by December 31, 2021 and release by September 30, 2021, a written plan for the restoration of all lines and service.”  (We wrote about this in the August 2021 Voice:  https://www.hanc-sf.org/24-home/630-we-must-fight-to-save-the-6-and-21-muni-lines ). 

In December, 2021, the SFMTA Board of Directors approved a plan for restoring most MUNI routes (https://www.sfmta.com/project-updates/2022-muni-service-network-approved-plan#Details ).  But within a few weeks, SFMTA wrote about the service changes “We had hoped to implement them all in early 2022, but unfortunately, our operator staffing has not increased as quickly as we had estimated when we started the public outreach process for these changes.”  The latest plan tentatively restores the 21 Hayes (to part of its former route) in June 2o22, and gives no projected date for restoring the 6 Parnassus (https://www.sfmta.com/projects/2022-muni-service-network ).

Read more ...