Sweet Melissa

Goddammit, Ross...

Constant Readers,

I'm trying to make sense of the Twitter/stock option tax/payroll tax debacle for a piece in The Examiner on Tuesday. I want to understand what is going on here, and I bet y'all do, too.

As part of my research for the piece, I'm watching last week's Board of Supervisors meeting so I can check out out all the proposals by the Supes. And Ross Mirkarimi is a truly nice man. A lovely soul. But just...just...LOOK at what I am dealing with here...

Here's his introduction of legislation:

There has been much attention placed over the last few days on the issue of us advancing legislation in providing for growing technology companies the exemption of their stock compensation as they are routinely required to pay to San Francisco. This idea, which I think has been floating for quite some time, and how we might be able to retain, grow, nurture businesses in San Francisco has now I think reached an appropriate juncture as a result of the deliberations on the Twitter proposal. I think the Twitter proposal, as many of us may opine, publicly or privately, has taught us that there is something very uneven and I have to say clumsy about the approach and us trying to do everything we can to marshal the resources of helping a company stay in San Francisco while it certainly threatens to leave, while at the same time, we want to see the double benefit of relocating a company or incentivizing that they relocate to an area that is distressed.

There are a number of technology companies in a number of districts that are also claiming a very similar point as Twitter has, too, and I think many of us knew that this inevitability was just a matter of time. And with the discussion that I think has been very critical for the question of overall city-wide reform that both President Chiu just referenced and I know that Supervisor Farrell and I know Supervisor Campos and Avalos and others have mentioned at one time or another, I think is coming to its natural head where it gives us an opportunity to laser in, in the most effective way possible, what are those remedying strategies. In my opinion, one of those strategies perhaps is a law that we’re submitting today, and I’d like to thank Supervisors Campos and Mar for the co- sponsor ship, that provides two years moratorium for technology companies that may soon go public.

Companies with more than 100 employees, 100 employees or more, companies founded after 2001 that are not currently traded on the stock exchange. We believe this is a unique period in history where there are a number of growing tech companies that may soon go public, making the timing here I think extremely important of our impending deliberations on this and other laws. Requiring that every company pay at least $1,500 per employee, even with the exemption; only applies to companies affected by the SF payroll tax. Those that have payrolls above $250,000. SF as it has been already mentioned is the only city with a payroll tax bundled with the stock option.

The city' s taxes are some of the highest in the state and in the nation. I believe there is a more progressive approach that helps answer the question that all of us want to see realized, and that is -- how do we retain companies in San Francisco, at least in this genre of industry, the technology companies? How do we incentivize that those companies be located and be host in neighborhoods that we also want to see benefit, I think, from their presence so that a wave effect is extended to other neighborhoods that would like to certainly I think, certainly enjoy that particular dividend, whether direct or indirect? And for us not to be triaging by happenstance every time a tech company says they’re about ready to leave San Francisco unless we react in a way that is not fluid or consistent with existing practice.

And I think what has been called into question is exactly what that existing practice is. I believe there is probably more wholesale reform in the making, but at least in the short term, our legislation specifies two years, I have already talked to a number of colleagues here who have asked and inquired about the legislation. That I am certainly pliable that we may be able to negotiate what those years may be. But I think it is important though that we do everything we can to look for the win-win to communities that may feel the double bang adversely by the potential gentrification that could be constituted by well- intentioned policies that are being discussed right now but might have the unintended consequences of not being able to help communities in which we hope that they serve.

We’re thinking that companies that exist, such as in District 10 or District 9, and other companies that I know would like to come to, say, District 5 – technology companies -  we are looking to find a way to incentivize them. By spot firing the potential remedy, I think of course we are at that particular intersection where we are able to institute hopefully some citywide reform that provides that particular incentive. I look forward to the deliberations on this and the others over the next few weeks and months.

Watch it for yourself at about minute 53 of the March 29 BOS meeting.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've obviously got to unscramble these Legislative Poetry Magnets before my deadline...

-Melissa

I'm not one to gossip, so you didn't hear it from me, but....

The mess of a mayor's race that is shaping up for November is like steroids for San Francisco’s political chattering class. If I printed all the gossip I hear, there wouldn’t be room for anything else. But I do have a harmless bit of rumor for you: I stopped by an event last week that was full of City Hall folks and the room was abuzz with talk that Janet Reilly and Aaron Peskin are each going to run for mayor.

Mel-sterpiece Theatre! Slappyfights are back!!

It has been months since any debate at the Board of Supervisors merited my dramatic interpretation, what with everyone afflicted by the easy civility that unimportant matters afford. But make no mistake, the threads on those friendship bracelets are starting to fray. Ideological differences are alive and well, and it took only a quiet little agenda item to expose them.

The Citizen’s Committee on Community Development is a body that makes recommendations about spending federal money — money that Republicans are presently trying to cut. Thinking this might be a good time to have someone on the committee with ties to Washington, D.C., Nicole Rivera, who is a field representative for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, was nominated for a spot previously held by neighborhood activist Charlie Sciammas.

The matter came up for a vote at the full board last Tuesday. Here’s my summary of what happened (these are not actual quotes):

John Avalos: I move to amend out the name Nicole Rivera and put in the name Charlie Sciammas, because Charlie has done so much for our communities.

Eric Mar: What Avalos said.

Sean Elsbernd: Um, you do realize that unless we have someone like Rivera on the commission, there won’t be any money to distribute? I mean, you get that, right? (Aborted next sentence: "Idiots.")

Malia Cohen: You’re all just hating on Rivera because she works for Pelosi. Rivera has done lots of great work in our city.

Scott Wiener: Rivera is young and brings diversity.

Avalos: Sciammas is Egyptian-American. So there. Diversity. Boom.

David Campos: I’ll toe the party line and support Sciammas, but let’s stick Rivera on another commission.

Avalos’ amendment passed with only Chu, Cohen, Elsbernd, Farrell and Wiener voting no.

But the best part was yet to come. Later, there were two pet projects of progressives on the agenda that were routine and would have been enacted with no problem, but Elsbernd used a rule of parliamentary procedure to delay them each for at least a month. (Dear nerds, he sent them to committee.)

I just moved to SOMA where taxis apparently don't exist, so yes, I'm bitter...

“We all know that calling a taxicab dispatch is about as effective as calling Muni to pick you up,” said David Chiu in a rare moment of candor and gumption at last Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting. I nearly dropped my Red Bull in a rush to applaud his insult to both Muni and taxi service.

Chiu was actually chastising the taxi industry just as the board was about to pass legislation – a law that Chiu sponsored – that would help the Metropolitan Transportation Agency crack down on illegal cabs and limousines. The new law would actually help registered cab drivers, but the moment was far from a love-fest as Chiu acknowledged that illegal cabs are the result of a dysfunctional legal cab system.

Supervisor Wiener then proposed an amendment that stripped out severe penalties for illegal taxis because, “the only reason why these unpermitted cabs exist and flourish is because of the inadequacies in our system - to come down with very, very heavy penalties does not make sense from a policy perspective.”

He also added a provision that requires the MTA to report to the board every quarter with actual evidence that the agency is working on the problem of abysmal taxi service in our fair city. Wiener’s amendments passed unanimously. His resolution asking the agency to issue additional taxicab permits for use during peak-hours is up for a vote today.

I asked Wiener whether he’s worried that taking on the taxi industry will get him blacklisted from service. His response? “Well, since I usually can't get a cab anyway, that wouldn't be a particularly effective weapon.”

Legal Opinion Says the Current Board Can Pick the Interim Mayor. Here We Go...

Constant Readers,

So, remember how the Board of Supes picked the Santa Clara County Counsel to opine on legal-mayoral-stuff because there would appear to be a conflict of interest when Mayoral-hopeful Dennis Herrera's office issues rulings on such issues?

The surrogate City Attorney for mayoral issues is Miguel Marquez and he's issued an opinion on Mayoral succession. Yes! He did! Here it is. Download Memo re Succession

In a nutshell, here's what it says:

1) THE CURRENT BOARD CAN APPOINT THE INTERIM MAYOR

The current Supes can vote to declare the Interim Mayor today. Like now. That person would be the
"Prospective Mayor" meaning: "gonna be mayor when Gavin leaves." Only trick is that they have to re-vote to confirm that Prospective Mayor after Gavin really leaves on January 3, 2011.

HOWEVER the new Board is sworn in on January 8, so the current Board would have to vote to confirm that Interim Mayor before January 8.

Of course, the current Board doesn't have to elect a Prospective Mayor. Then can also just declare and confirm a person as Interim Mayor between January 3 and January 8.

To sum up: the current Board has five days between Jan 3 and 8 to appoint and confirm an Interim Mayor. And they can start that process now.

2) WHAT IF THE CURRENT BOARD ELECTS A PROSPECTIVE MAYOR BUT FAILS TO CONFIRM THAT PERSON BEFORE JANUARY 8?

The new Board can do whatever it wants - confirm the old Board's choice or pick a new one. They aren't bound by the prior Board's actions.

3) WHAT IF THE CURRENT BOARD CONFIRMS AN INTERIM MAYOR THE NEW BOARD DOESN'T LIKE?

Tuff noogies. Once confirmed, its a done deal and there's nothing the new Board can do about it.

4) WHAT IF THE BOARD DOES NOTHING?    

Per the Charter, the Board President becomes Acting Mayor when Gavin leaves. In this case, David Chiu becomes Acting Mayor from January 3 to January 8.

Now, the first order of business of the new Board when it convenes on January 8 is to pick a Board President. Lets hypothesize that the new Board picks David Campos to be the new Board President. Campos then becomes the new Acting Mayor. If the Board re-elects Chiu, he'll stay the Acting Mayor.

And if the new Board never picks an Interim Mayor, the Acting Mayor hangs out until November 2011 when we all vote on a new Mayor.

5) ARE THERE LIMITS ON WHAT THE ACTING MAYOR CAN DO?

Nope. He can do all the fun stuff a regular mayor can do. Appoint people to commissions, put stuff on the ballot, etc.

GLOSSARY:

Prospective Mayor: One picked by the current Board but not yet confirmed because we're waiting for Gavin to leave office on Jan 3.

Interim Mayor: One confirmed as Mayor after Jan 3 - and who serves until we pick a new one in November 2011.

Acting Mayor: The Board President filling the office of the Mayor until an Interim Mayor is chosen - or until the Novermber 2011 election if no Interim Mayor is chosen.

One big difference between the Interim and Acting Mayorship: if the Interim Mayor is a member of the Board of Supervisors, he has to resign his seat and appoint a replacement. If he's simply the Acting Mayor, he doesn't.

A final thought: according to this opinion, the current Board of Supervisors has the opportunity to exert some real power with this Interim Mayor thing. You can bet they will try. They may not get to a concensus on an Interim Mayor, but they're not gonna just give away this opportunity to the new Board. Some serious shit is about to go down. Stay tuned...

-Melissa

 

 

According to his Spokesman, Mistermayor will Veto this anyway...

‘If you give someone a pill, there are two things they will do with it. They will either swallow it or throw it away,” Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi said in his introductory remarks at last week’s Public Safety Committee meeting. The committee was considering Mirkarimi’s drug-return legislation, which will be considered by the full Board of Supervisors today.

The problem, most environmentally conscious types agree, is that drugs are getting into our water because our systems are not equipped to deal with the amount or type of drugs that go down the toilet or in the trash and find their way into our pipes.

On Oct. 12, President Barack Obama signed into law a bill that directs the U.S. attorney general to create reasonable regulations that would allow pharmacies to accept all substances and dispose of them properly.

Problem solved, right?

Wrong.

The same supervisor who brought you the cat-declawing ban has proposed a scheme to make every drug company that sells or distributes drugs in San Francisco develop and implement a “take-back” policy so people can return the drugs to the source. There are so many problems with this proposal, it’s hard to know where to begin.

- When Supervisor Sean Elsbernd asked Mirkarimi how we plan to enforce this against medical marijuana producers in San Francisco, Mirkarimi (whose district includes the Haight, mind you) had no real answer.

- British Columbia, Canada, is cited again and again as the model for the proposed program. And why not? All you have to do is overlook the fact that B.C. is in Canada; is a province, not a city; and has a population of 4.5 million people.

- There was no hearing on this potentially significant law at the Environmental Commission, the Public Utilities Commission or the Health Commission. The first and only hearing about this law, which could cause drug manufacturers to raise prices here or abandon San Francisco altogether, had exactly one public hearing — at the Board of Supervisors.

Mirkarimi’s proposal is a bitter pill for drug companies. Some might swallow it, but you can bet that others will throw it, and their dealings with our fair city, away.

Quote of the Meeting...

“I understand, Supervisor Daly, why you feel frustrated. I feel frustrated, too.”

         — Jessie Lorenz, who is blind, explaining that disabled people are the real losers when the process of making the Board of Supervisors’ chambers accessible takes years (as it has) to complete. Daly had proposed that one part of the room be made inaccessible to everyone, thus achieving fairness, and complained that the Mayor’s Office of Disability would take too long to consider his idea. The board approved the accessibility plan, with Daly as the single “no” vote.

(NOTE: Ms. Lorenz is the Associate Director at Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco. I don't usually quote public commenters, but her speech was wonderful.)

Quote of the Meeting

“Supervisor Daly, I would like to request that you refrain from profanity in this meeting.”

-Board President David Chiu fighting a losing battle against Supervisor Chris Daly’s penchant for saying the f-bomb at Board of Supervisors meetings. The Board was considering a proposed alcohol fee and Daly had twice referred to opposition to the fee as “fucking whining.” Ever the gentleman, Daly thereafter used the term “eff-ing whining.”

Pleeeeeeese put in a Bojangles Chicken n' Biscuits....

Life is tough for the poor supervisors. After not being able to meet for a whole month, they were assaulted Tuesday with massive efforts by groups begging to fill vacant storefronts. What to do with all this attention?

The Planning Commission had previously approved an application by Pet Food Express to occupy a vacant old video store at California Street and Presidio Avenue. The commission had also given the go-ahead to the creation of a large shopping center at Fifth and Market streets. Both decisions were appealed to the Board of Supervisors, where reason reigns.

First up was the hearing on Pet Food Express. Every small pet food store in The City (and one from Pacifica) got together to oppose the store, but community members and animal-rights activists were on hand to offer support. Best quote (from a small pet store owner), “We are no longer even selling pet food. We opened a dog cafe instead where we serve entrees.” No appetizers? Outrageous!

After a hearing in which Supervisor David Campos was unusually prickly (seriously, it was weird) toward the Planning Department for approving the Pet Food Express project, only six supes voted against the pet store, two short of the eight needed to block the plan.

Later, the CityPlace retail project was approved unanimously by the board after the developer of the five-story shopping center promised to pay about $2 million to The City for pedestrian improvements. (Yeah, I meant that both ways.) This is what we charge in penance for demanding enough parking spaces for people to haul off big flat-screens from Best Buy (a girl can dream!) in cars.

And so, kicking and screaming, the supes have accepted the pleas of retailers that want to fill our large empty buildings, hire people and pay taxes. Now, back to naptime!

Welcome back, to that same old place that we laughed about...

Having had a full four weeks to think up new and inventive ways to tell us what to do, I’m eager to see what the supes will have to introduce Tuesday when they meet to vote on a number of old items. The most interesting thing on the agenda: Supervisor John Avalos’ alcohol fee to pay for alcohol treatment services.

Estimates of the impact of this fee range from a few cents per drink up to $1, depending on whom you ask. The study showing the costs of alcohol abuse services upon which this law is based basically reflects that the beneficiaries are a few thousand people.

While this is a microcosm of what happens with millions of our tax dollars in this city, people are riled up about having to directly foot the $18 million bill for alcohol treatment. This fact is not lost on people seeking higher office.

Lieutenant governor candidate Mistermayor has promised to veto the measure and Mayoral candidate Supervisor Bevan Dufty plans to vote against it. Dufty’s vote, along with those of Supervisors Michela Alioto-Pier, Carmen Chu and Sean Elsbernd, mean that the veto will stick.

Not that any of this will stop the show at the Board of Supervisors meeting. There will be long self-satisfying speeches. People wearing stickers will clap. After the meeting, I’ll meet up with my fellow political nerds. Perhaps we’ll create a new drink and call it “the veto.” Then we’ll toast the return of the supes.