Welcome to Smoke Freecisco
In the first of three planned blows to the sale and use of tobacco in SF, the Board yesterday voted 8-3 to ban the sale of tobacco products in pharmacies. (Ordinance here: Download pharmacy_tobacco_ban.pdf.) Supervisors Chu, Dufty and Elsbernd voted against the measure, which will only affect Rite-Aid, Walgreens and the 4 independent pharmacies in town that sell tobacco.
This ordinance, which is modeled after one in effect in 8 Canadian provinces, does not apply to big box stores or supermarkets with pharmacies - a fact that Walgreens supporters howled about during the City Operations Committee hearing on this ordinance.
According to Mitch Katz, head of the SF Dept of Public Health, the rationale behind the proposal is that Walgreens and Rite-Aid (as opposed to other stores with pharmacies) market themselves with slogans like: "With us, it's personal" and "The Pharmacy America Trusts." Selling cigarettes in a place dedicated to promoting personal health sends our kids a mixed message - like selling tobacco in a hospital. We must do all we can to make smoking socially unacceptable, sed he in the committee hearing.
I, for one, could not agree more. Other items sold at Walgreens that should not be socially acceptable include banana clips, press-on toenails, jelly air-fresheners, Pez for Pets and leakage-inducing diet aids. I'm drafting the ordinance now.
LOOK FOR: Supervisor McGoldrick's forthcoming ordinance banning smoking on all property owned by the City - including property leased to other entities. In the City Ops Committee hearing on the pharmacy ban, he repeatedly promised to introduce such a law.
AND DON'T FORGET: Supervisor Daly's ordinance that will prohibit smoking in all kinds of public places, including charity bingo games. This ordinance was recently held up in the City Ops Committee because of amendments, but it is on track to come before the full Board in the coming weeks.
She hasn’t sung yet…
Yesterday the Board finally passed it’s version of the budget with a 10-1 vote - Daly noted “no”. So we’re done, right?
Of course not, Constant Readers. This is San Francisco! We’re not even close to finished!
Now the Mistermayor gets to go through the Board’s budget line by line and freeze the funds for certain projects. He could veto certain funding, too (the budget is the only time he can do a line item veto) but the Board could overturn any veto with a 2/3 vote. (Charter sec. 9.104.) Nope, by simply freezing the spending, he can unilaterally nix an entire expenditure. (Note that he can’t shift funding from one project to another.)
So, why would the Mistermayor cut anything from this year’s budget?
Allow me to walk you through something that happened during this year’s budget process: In 1976, voters passed Prop J, which requires positions to be exempted from civil service where the work can be performed under contract at a lower cost to the City and County - as determined by the Controller and the Board of Supervisors.
This year, in the budget the Mayor submitted to the Board, there were two “Prop J’s”: they were for outsourcing the janitorial functions at 875 Stevenson Street and the security forces at SF General Hospital, Laguna Honda Hospital and related clinics. The total amount of savings represented by the latter Prop J is estimated at $5 million dollars.
On July 17, the Board rejected both proposals for Prop J outsourcing. But, um...they had already spent the money that the outsourcing was supposed to save. They needed to cut $5 million dollars from somewhere else. But that never happened. So, the Mayor now gets to go freeze $5 million in pet projects of Board members who refused to outsource the proposed security functions in an effort to balance the budget.
Note to city-funded organizations: if Supervisors Ammiano, Daly, Dufty, Maxwell, Mirkarimi, Peskin or Sandoval (the folks who voted against outsourcing) were your patron saints during budget negotiations, don’t toss those copies of your resume just yet.
Pants on Fire
Things got heated during the Board's discussion of a proposal by Supervisor Daly to remove the time limits that apply to families receiving rental subsidies. (Ordinance here: Download rental_subsidy.pdf) Currently a family may only receive the $500 per month rental subsidy for two years (which can be extended in certain circumstances). Daly argued that it is unreasonable to expect anyone to increase their income by $6000k in each of two consecutive years. Opponents (like McGoldrick) were concerned about the effects of not placing any limitation on the length of time a family may receive the subsidy and the effect that might have on the program to take on new families. Then this little exchange took place:
Daly: I just want to make sure – I don’t think that Supervisor McGoldrick watched the hearing [on this ordinance] because I think if he did, perhaps...
McGoldrick: I did watch the hearing. Thank you.
Daly: Yeah, I believe you…how many members of the public spoke against the measure? Through the Chair.
McGoldrick: (jokingly) 42 and a half.
Daly: (unamused) Through the Chair to Supervisor McGoldrick, if you watched the hearing, how many members of the public spoke against the item, Supervisor?
Peskin: (trying to maintain order) Supervisor...
McGoldrick: It’s public record.
Peskin: Alright…colleagues…
Daly: It is public record and you don’t know it because you didn’t watch it. You lied. So, on public record...
McGoldrick: I watched (inaudible), buddy.
Daly: ...colleagues there was one member of the public who spoke against the item…
Yikes! In McGoldrick's defense, the hearing was more than 4 hours long. In Daly's defense, the testimony was very moving. (I watched it last weekend. This is why I'm hot.) The ordinance was sent back to the Land Use Committee where some limitation - longer than the current 2 years - is likely to be added.
QUOTE OF THE MEETING:
"All this talk about smoking; I'm wondering, does anybody have a light?"
-Supervisor Ammiano right before Tuesday's vote on the pharmacy tobacco ban. Actually, a cigarette after the vote might have been more appropriate...
Anyone have any idea what this budget will mean to the SFDPH and hiring? I'm a RN trying to get a job at SFGH and all the RN Managers I speak to say the budget is in too much flux right now and I should "try back later."
Posted by: NRN | July 30, 2008 at 13:40
@NRN - At the July 16 Board meeting when the Prop J's were rejected, Supervisor McGoldrick specifically stated that there are nursing positions in this year's budget that might have to be cut if we don't outsource hospital security. So, I think there is a very real fear that the final budget might not include some of those RN positions. SEIU jobs (and I think RNs at SFGH are SEIU jobs - though I could be wrong) are at a special risk becase the SEIU apparently didn't offer any givebacks this year when other unions did.
These are all just things I saw while watching the hearings, I hope it helps. The Board goes on an extended break in mid-Agusut, so things should be wrapped up by then and SFGH should have a better idea of how many RNs they can hire. Best of luck to you.
Posted by: Sweet Melissa | July 30, 2008 at 14:23
Thanks, Melissa. You're right about SEIU. I really appreciate the insight you provide!
Posted by: NRN | July 30, 2008 at 14:36
Is their rational for banning cigarettes in Walgreens and Rite Aid really based on the stores' slogans? That's great! Have they looked at Safeway (which is excluded from the ban)?
"Ingredients for Life."
And talk about effective legislation. What, now smokers are going to have to scour the city searching for a liquor store? Now that's a tough hurdle to cross.
Posted by: Be_Devine | July 30, 2008 at 16:51
If we're going down that road...Safeway might be the least safe way for me to get my shopping done. We even affectionately call it the "not so" Safeway.
What up? Can I get a "Code 99!" from the crowd?
Posted by: vansmack | July 30, 2008 at 17:04
Geez, if I didn't have a job, I may have shown up at City Hall and spoken against removing any time limit too. 2 years is plenty of time for people to get their shit together and either make a living in San Francisco or pack up and go to a cheaper place to live. The sense of entitlement that everybody should be able to live in San Francisco is beyond stupid - I waited until I was 30 because I had enough damn sense to know I couldn't afford to live here before then on the salary I earned. Duh.
Posted by: Jamie | July 30, 2008 at 22:29
Oh ... and on the vote about which types of stores cannot sell cigarettes - what other prohibitions should we come up with? Prohibit Twinkies, Potato Chips, Beer, Whiskey ... oh wait, what would the corner liquor stores sell in the Tenderloin? Doh. Dumb legislation ... though I give Supervisor Daly a thumbs up for the smoking ban proposal. While I don't care if people buy cigarettes wherever, I don't want their damn smoke in my lungs.
I'm feisty tonight ... :)
Posted by: Jamie | July 30, 2008 at 22:34
@Devine - I'd never lie to you, my dear. You bring up an excellent point about Safeway that I am sure Walgreens will bring up in its court papers when it sues the CCSF over this ordinance.
@vansmack - "Code 99"!!!!! Meat smuggler alert!
@Jamie - Go on, get feisty! Rowr!
Posted by: Sweet Melissa | July 31, 2008 at 13:22