By Lisa Awbrey, HANC President

As we all know, district based elections for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors require adjustment of supervisorial district boundaries every 10 years in order to reflect population shifts by giving each district roughly the same number of people within plus or minus 5% of the average. 

The Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council Board and members engaged early and often in this most recent redistricting mapping process. Although many of us are deeply disheartened and angered by the final map that was adopted by the Redistricting Task Force at the end of April, HANC is resigned to continue to organize and engage with our neighbors around everyday issues that impact each of us. The newly adopted map has torn the Haight Ashbury asunder into 3 new districts: D5, D7 and D8. 

At our June public meeting, we will discuss how to keep Haight residents and community members in surrounding neighborhoods that were formerly a part of D5 connected and together even though the new map has torn us apart. Let us aspire to continue to work together no matter which district we live in. This is most certainly not goodbye, but if anything, a wake up call and reinvigoration of our Council and our communities. Here is an opportunity to strengthen and grow our coalition beyond old boundaries. 

By David Woo, HANC Vice President

HANC welcomes our new neighbors in the Tenderloin to District 5. We hope to build together around issues that face our communities and struggles for affordable housing, tenants’ rights, and supporting our houseless neighbors.

The San Francisco redistricting process was a joke. The Redistricting Task Force created a predetermined map, aimed specifically at attacking tenants, low-income and working-class residents, communities of color, the LGBTQ+ community, and established neighborhoods. The Chair of the Task Force even admitted to multiple people that he was under immense pressure from the Mayor, who had appointed him to the Task Force, to make specific changes. The impact of outside influences on certain Task Force members, in an attempt to shift the political landscape of the current districts, became abundantly clear as the months wore on in the redistricting process.

Central to the shifting boundaries in the redistricting process was District 6 and the Tenderloin. Tenderloin and South of Market residents gave testimony, submitted evidence, and spoke again and again about the deep connection and community that spans the two neighborhoods. The refusal of these two neighborhoods to be split from each other, and remain together in District 6, was a consistent demand articulated by the Black, Filipino, LGBTQ+, and Arab communities who live in these two neighborhoods.

Read more ...

By Jaime Michaels, HANC Board

In Spring 2020, after the COVID-19 lockdown had taken effect, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) implemented the Slow Street program in various neighborhoods to create more space where people could recreate at safe social distances and also away from car traffic. Page Street between its intersections with Stanyan and Octavia was included in the pilot program. To date, traffic management features on Page St. have been temporary and largely informal, but SFMTA is now proposing several more formal measures, as described below:

Vehicle Turn Restrictions at Page St. Intersections With Stanyan and Masonic. (1) At the intersection of Page and Stanyan, northbound and southbound vehicles on Stanyan would be prohibited from turning onto Page and, thus, from traveling eastbound between Stanyan and Shrader. Westbound vehicles on Page between Stanyan and Shrader, and turns from Page to Stanyan would be allowed; and (2) at the intersection of Masonic, northbound vehicles would be prohibited from turning right and left onto Page and southbound vehicles would be prohibited from turning left onto Page. According to SFMTA, the proposed measures are intended to affect eastbound traffic on Page, and  would not apply to emergency vehicles or alternative modes of transit (e.g., bikes, wheelchairs, skateboards, and pedestrians).

Read more ...

By David Woo, HANC Vice President

Residents, neighbors, and community workers had another successful event at the 730 Stanyan site drawing well over 200 people, and again showed what can be done for interim use when the community controls the vacant lot. On May 21st, for the second time this year, groups including the Coalition for a Complete Community at 730 Stanyan (CCC), senior working group, HANC, Cole Valley Haight Allies, Acrosports, Booksmith, Amoeba, and Institute on Aging organized a one-day event at the empty lot at 730 Stanyan that will become the site of 100% affordable housing with construction set to begin in 2023.

Read more ...

By Bruce Wolfe, HANC Board

Alerting you to legislation pending in California that would take the wrong lesson from the pandemic and weaken open-government laws under the guise of increasing remote access to meetings.

We here in San Francisco have the strongest open government law in the state, the Sunshine Ordinance, but there's a basic tenet for all governments:

SEC. 67.1. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

   The Board of Supervisors and the People of the City and County of San Francisco find and declare:

   (a) Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public.

This has precedent to mean in-person. The two bills that seek to weaken all public meetings in California are:

AB 1944: A Bill Fundamentally Changing the Brown Act

AB 1773: A Bill Overhauling the Bagley-Keene Act

Both bills seek to overhaul public meetings in California, making it inaccessible to attend in-person.

Please go to the First Amembent Coalition website for more information and updates.

https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2022/05/fac-opposes-legislation-that-would-weaken-public-oversight-of-government-officials-in-california/

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 ...