November 2010 - Sustainability

[Sustain] Ikea: Stop palm oil candles and save the habitat of 130 orangutans
by Eric Brooks 26 Nov '10

26 Nov '10

info(a)regenwald.org wrote: Dear friends of the rain forest, the Swedish transnational home wares giant, IKEA, sells huge amounts of candles and tealights made of palm oil. But can you enjoy the cosy glow of candles knowing that to produce palm oil rain forests are irretrievably razed, appalling crimes are perpetrated on people living there and the world climate is ruined? Please take part in our campaign to save the rain forests by writing to IKEA, demanding they stop selling palm oil products. http://www.rainforest-rescue.org Heartfelt thanks and best regards Klaus Schenck Rainforest Rescue 22391 Hamburg 49 -40 - 4103804 http://www.rainforest-rescue.org/ http://www.facebook.com/StopAgroenergy

1 0

[Sustain] Update On Mayor Selection Battle - Pretty Good News
by Eric Brooks 25 Nov '10

25 Nov '10

Hi all, On Tuesday Nov 23, we won most (though not quite all) of what we needed to ensure a truly public process and a fair vote on a nominee for interim mayor. The SF Guardian published this very solid synopsis of how it all came down. (Note my added blog comment below the report which fills in an important detail the Guardian missed.) http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2010/11/24/progressives-show-unity-board-appro… Progressives show unity as board approves mayoral succession process 11.24.10 - 11:41 am | Steven T. Jones | The San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a process for replacing Mayor Gavin Newsom last night after the progressive majority stuck together on a pair of key procedural votes and some parliamentary jousting provided a preview of the high-stakes power struggle that will begin Dec. 7. Sup. Sean Elsbernd led the board moderates (Sups. Carmen Chu, Michela Alioto-Pier, Bevan Dufty, and Sophie Maxwell) in trying to dilute the voting power of the six progressives on the board (Sups. David Chiu, Chis Daly, David Campos, Eric Mar, Ross Mirkarimi, and John Avalos) and ensure they can't vote as a bloc to choose the new mayor. State conflict-of-interest rules spelled out by the California Political Reform Act and associated rulings prevent supervisors from voting in their economic interests, as becoming mayor would be. So Board Clerk Angela Calvillo and the Santa Clara County Counsel's Office (legal counsel in the matter after our own City Attorney's Office recused itself) created procedures whereby all nominees leave the room while the remaining supervisors vote. But as Daly noted, clearing several supervisors from the room would make it unlikely that those remaining to come up with six votes for anyone. He also said the system would deny too many San Franciscans of a representative in this important decision and allow sabotage by just a few moderate supervisors, who could vote with a majority of supervisors present to adjourn the meeting in order to push the decision back to the next board that is sworn in on Jan. 11. “The process before us is flawed,” Daly said. So Daly sought to have the board vote on every nomination as it comes up, but Elsbernd argued that under Robert's Rules of Order, nominations don't automatically close like that and to modify a board rule that contradicts Robert's Rules requires a supermajority of eight votes. Calvillo, who serves as the parliamentarian, agreed with that interpretation and Chiu (who serves as chair and is the final word on such questions) ruled that a supermajority was required. Although some of his progressive colleagues privately grumbled about a ruling that ultimately hurt the progressives' preferred system, Chiu later told the Guardian, “I gotta play umpire as I see the rules...We need to ensure the process and how we arrive at a process is fair and transparent.” Nonetheless, Chiu voted with the progressives on the rule change, which failed on a 6-5 vote. But Daly noted that supervisors may still refuse nominations and remain voting until they are ready to be considered themselves, which could practically have the same effect as the rejected rule change. “If we think that's a better way to do it, we can do it, but we don't need to fall into the trap and subterfuge of our opponents,” Daly told his colleagues. Elsbernd then moved to approve the process as developed by Calvillo, but Daly instead made a motion to amend the process by incorporating some elements on his plan that don't require a supermajority. After a short recess to clarify the motion, the next battleground was over the question of how nominees would be voted on. Calvillo and Elsbernd preferred a system whereby supervisors would vote on the group of nominees all at once, but Daly argued that would dilute the vote and make it difficult to discern which of the nominees could get to six votes (and conversely, which nominees couldn't and could thereby withdraw their nominations and participate in the process). “It is not the only way to put together a process that relies on Robert's Rules and board rules,” Daly noted, a point that was also confirmed at the meeting by Assistant Santa Clara County Counsel Orry Korb under questioning from Campos. “There are different ways to configure the nomination process,” Korb said. “Legally, there is no prohibition against taking single nominations at a time.” So Daly made a motion to have each nominee in turn voted up or down by the voting board members, which required only a majority vote because it doesn't contradict Robert's Rules of Order. That motion was approved by the progressive supervisors on a 6-5 vote. Both sides at times sought to cast the other as playing procedural games, and both emphasized what an important decision this is. “This is without a question the most important vote that any of us will take as a member of the Board of Supervisors and one that everyone is watching,” Elsbernd said of choosing a new mayor. So after the divisive procedural votes played out, Chiu stepped down from the podium and appealed for unity around the final set of procedures. He said that San Franciscans need to have confidence that the process is fair and accepted by all, and so, “It would be great if we have more than a 6-5 vote on this.” As the role call was taken, Carmen Chu was the first moderate to vote “yes,” and her colleagues followed suit on a 11-0 vote to approve the process. At that point, the board could have begun taking nominations, but it was already 7 p.m. and both Daly and Chiu argued to delay that process by couple weeks. “We owe it to ourselves and this city to have a discussion [of what qualities various supervisors want to see in a new mayor] before we get into names and sequestration,” Daly said. He and other progressive proposed to continue this discussion to Dec. 7, but Elsbernd – who was visibly agitated by the discussion – suddenly moved to table the item (which would end the discussion without spelling out the next step), a motion rejected on a 4-7 vote, with Maxwell joining the progressives. The discussion ended with a unanimous vote to continue the item to Dec. 7, when supervisors will discuss what they want in a new mayor and possibly begin the process of making and voting on nominations. Anyone who receives six votes will need to again be confirmed during the board meeting on Jan. 4, a day after Newsom assumes the office of lieutenant governor. Comments: One Problematic Glitch Remains In Mayor Appointment Rules There is still one problematic glitch in the newly passed rules for the selection of the new mayor. Specifically, what the rules now say, is that nominations will be opened and a series of nominations will be taken. Then the supervisors will vote on those nominations one by one. HOWEVER, if more than one sitting supervisor is nominated in that first set of nominations, ALL of them will have to leave the room and not take part in ANY voting UNTIL their own nomination is voted on. So we still could get a situation in which most of the progressives supervisors are out of the room for a key vote on a specific progressive candidate. So the progressives will either have to tweak the rules as they begin so that candidates leave the room -only- during a vote on their -own- candidacy, or the progressives will have to agree to only appoint one progressive sitting supervisor in that first wave of nominations, and only one in all subsequent new sets of nominations. The latter option is tricky because the Brown Act precludes them from discussing it ahead of time. So they should just tweak the rule before they begin voting. Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 24, 2010 @ 4:01 pm

1 0

[Sustain] SF Weekly, Guardian, Nail Key Flaws In Proposed Mayor Selection Process
by Eric Brooks 24 Nov '10

24 Nov '10

Hi again all, Both the SF Weekly and the SF Guardian just nailed incredibly deep flaws in the Clerk's proposed Rule for the Mayoral selection process. See.. Weekly: http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/11/board_of_supervisors_mayor_fac.… Guardian: http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2010/11/23/editorial-screwy-process-selecting-…

2 1

[Sustain] CRUCIAL: Tell Mirkarimi & Mar Vote NO On Clerk's Mayor Appointment Process
by Eric Brooks 23 Nov '10

23 Nov '10

All, It is crucial that the supervisors vote -no- today on the Mayoral appointment rules process just proposed by the Clerk of the Board and advising attorneys. (See attached.) I have never seen a more convoluted process designed for failure in my life. It is nearly impossible to understand its pretzel-like implications at all, yet after reading it a couple of times, what does become clear is that there is no way in hell that the proposed process could lead to 6 votes to appoint a mayor. Especially the provisions requiring Supervisors to leave the room for various reasons and not be allowed to vote, and the necessity that Supervisors permanently remove themselves from contention during various points in the process will make it impossible to reach a successful conclusion. There are many other similar extreme problems with the proposed rule, too numerous to list; those are just the most obvious examples. If we are going to succeed in seating a progressive mayor quickly enough to face the budget crisis, we must get the four votes necessary to vote down this ridiculous rule. ACTION: CALL supervisors Mirkarimi 415-554-7630, and Mar 415-554-7410, right away and -before- 3pm today to insist that they: "Vote NO on the rule proposed by the Board Clerk for the Mayoral appointment, and instead proceed with existing Board rules with ongoing advice from the Santa Clara County Council." Daly, Avalos, and Campos are very likely already with us. Their numbers are: David Campos: 415-554-5144 John Avalos: 415-554-6975 Chris Daly: 415-554-7970

1 0

[Sustain] Pittsburgh Challenges Corporate 'Rights' & 'Personhood' Bans Gas Drilling
by Eric Brooks 21 Nov '10

21 Nov '10

Pittsburgh becomes first city to ban natural gas drilling by directly challenging corporate 'rights' and 'personhood'. http://paulcienfuegos.com/node/65 *Paul Cienfuegos <http://paulcienfuegos.com/> * Workshop Leader, Lecturer, Writer, Bookseller, Engaged Citizen Home <http://paulcienfuegos.com/> > Blogs <http://paulcienfuegos.com/blog> > Paul's blog <http://paulcienfuegos.com/blog/3> > Open Letter to Communities Working to Stop Fracking (November 16, 2010) Submitted by Paul on Sat, 11/20/2010 - 22:19 This morning, the Pittsburgh City Council became the first municipality in the United States to ban natural gas extraction within its boundaries. The ordinance isn't just a ban -- it consists of a new Bill of Rights for Pittsburgh residents (which includes a right to water along with rights for ecosystems and nature), and then proceeds to ban those activities -- including natural gas extraction - which would violate those rights. But it doesn't stop there. The ordinance seeks to undo over a hundred years' worth of law in the United States which gives corporations greater rights than the communities in which they do business. Those rights come in two primary forms -- first are corporate constitutional rights and powers (including court-bestowed constitutional rights of persons, or "personhood" rights), and second, are corporate rights that have been codified by statewide laws (like Pennsylvania's Oil and Gas Act), which liberate the corporation from local control in individual issue areas. When a community makes a decision which runs afoul of either of those corporate rights frameworks, corporate decisionmakers use the courts to throw out the community's decision. If a municipality bans a State-permitted activity, it gets sued for "taking" the corporation's property as a constitutional violation. If it attempts to legislate in an area in which the State has created a regulatory program which permits the activity, the community then gets sued by the corporation for violating preemptive state law. And why wouldn't they? After all, corporate lawyers created the very rights-frameworks that they use the courts to enforce, concocting many of those doctrines precisely to restrict community lawmaking as far back as the late 19^th century. In fact, those frameworks have been so effective that we rarely even dream about what our communities would look like if we actually called the shots. We even question ourselves as to whether we should have that power or not. And so we turn away from that grim reality, and instead attempt to use other tools that have been given to us which respect and incorporate those rights-frameworks. We attempt to use zoning laws to ban certain activities and learn that banning through zoning violates corporate constitutional due process rights. Turned back on that front, we then negotiate with the corporation - and beg and plead with state regulators - so that the corporation causes a little less harm to our communities. As second-class citizens, our rights made secondary to the privileges of corporations, we look for solutions to the ignoble status we've been relegated to. Our work plays out within a very small box of "allowable activism" bounded on all sides by rights-frameworks which protect a relatively small number of corporate decisionmakers. What does this have to do with fracking in the Marcellus shale formation? Everything. The rationale behind the Pittsburgh ordinance is a simple one. If we respect and comply with those frameworks of law -- playing within the sandbox that has been constructed for us - we'll get drilled. It's as straightforward as simple arithmetic. Which brings us to another logical conclusion: if we want to stop the drilling, we must therefore undo those false corporate rights frameworks. Over a hundred other municipal governments across Pennsylvania have joined Pittsburgh in reaching that revelation -- that the only way to stop agribusiness factory farms, sewage sludge dumping, corporate waste disposal, and natural gas extraction is to frontally and directly challenge those layers of corporate law which have removed any vestige of community self-government. As with the passage of similar ordinances by municipalities in Pennsylvania over the past several years, which have dealt with an array of issues, the Pittsburgh ordinance will result in a lot of hand-wringing by statewide environmental groups, which have made long careers out of not coloring outside of the lines. As they see it, their job is to work within existing law and do their best to limit environmental damage. That's why they call for more zoning laws (even though horizontal drilling defeats the purpose of zoning the placement of drilling pads, for example), or a severance tax (which ironically, encourages even more drilling to produce more revenue). It's why they talk about "responsible" drilling and natural gas as a "bridge" to a sustainable energy future. It's why they've talked themselves into seeing drilling as inevitable, and that the best we can do is simply to endure it. In doing so, they've condemned our communities to the same kind of damage that the gas corporations are forcing upon us. They may be nice people, but they're not our friends in this mess. They're too obedient in a situation that demands widespread disobedience. Stopping the drilling means coming face-to-face with the reality that this country isn't what we thought it was. That the rights-frameworks claimed by the corporations are not just a tragic mistake, but are the underlying reality demonstrated by our existence in a system in which the legal system serves corporate production but not community democracy. These local ordinances intend to turn that structure upside down -- subordinating corporate "rights" and corporate production to local self-governance and the rights of nature, rather than the other way around. For that reason, if we truly believe in economic and environmental sustainability, variations of the Pittsburgh ordinance must spread to a thousand other communities in the path of the Marcellus shale drillers. And then it must spread to a thousand more. More importantly, perhaps, communities need to jettison corporate lawyers and lobbyists from their municipal meeting rooms. We need to stop listening to environmental lawyers who tell us that there's nothing that we can do. We need to take a collective stand to reject corporate-imposed energy policies and replace them with local ones of our own making. We then must be prepared to disobey courts and legislatures who inform us that we can't have sustainability because it interferes with corporate prerogatives. It's time. After all, what's left? After ripping up our communities, there will be a new scheme to extract something else, and another one after that. It's time to shut down the machine. It's time to use our municipalities to engage in collective civil disobedience through community lawmaking. As Frederick Douglass wrote over a hundred years ago - /If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation...want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. . . Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress./ It's time to use our municipal governments to demand an end to all activities and policies that are harmful to our communities and the natural communities upon which our lives depend. It's time to undo a structure of law that authorizes corporate minorities to run roughshod over community majorities. Isn't that what democracy is supposed to be about? /From The Staff of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF.org)/

1 0

[Sustain] Psst.... (SF Green Party) Tomorrow 4pm City Hall Rm 250 SPEAK Demand New Mayor Choice Now
by Susan King 16 Nov '10

16 Nov '10

Hi all, I guess I am not sure why waiting is worse than having the old board vote for Interim Mayor. Of the 4 new Supervisors- 2 (likely Mark Farrell) 6 (Jane Kim), 8 (Scott Weiner) and 10 (likely Malia Cohen), the composition of progressive to moderate is about the same. It is hard to imagine anyone worse than Alioto Pier in 2, so even if Mark Farrell is moderate to conservative his vote would not be significantly different than Michaela's. Jane Kim in D 6 is progressive, replacing progressive Daly; Scott Weiner in D 8 is a moderate replacing moderate Bevan Dufty, and Malia Cohen- a mayor's person- replaces Maxwell in D 10, who was never a solid progressive vote and allowed Lennar and PG &E to run roughshod over Bayview residents. Add to the mix that at least four of our Supervisors (Ross, Chui, Campos, Dufty) on the current board- 3 of whom remain next year- will be looking for an Interim Mayor that will not compete with their bid for the office in November of 2011. That leaves the very likely scenario that no one on the board will garner the 6 votes (since they cannot vote for themselves) either now or when the new board is seated. Of the names bandied about as a 'seat warmer Mayor', only Steve Kawa, Newsom's right hand man (and likely the person who has actually been running the City) is the downtown guy, and no progressive Supervisor will vote for him under any scenario. If the other progressive would- be-Mayor Supervisors put their own ambitions before the needs of the City then we could end up with someone like Ed Harrington or Sherriff Hennessy, since they have both explicitly stated they have no intention to run for Mayor. The bad news here is that we need someone to lead, not just keep the seat warm. To that end, I am promoting my boss, Livable City Executive Director and BART Board Member Tom Radulovich for interim Mayor. He's smart, knows how the City works- and how it doesn't- has electoral experience and a solid progressive voting record. He would not run in November, but would accept the post until the new Mayor takes the helm and would leave our City in much better shape than any of the other possible mentions. Spread the word: Tom Radulovich for Interim Mayor! peace, susan On Nov 15, 2010, at 4:18 PM, Ann Garrison wrote: > Seems pretty clear that, should the Board insist on voting, Chiu > wants them to do so in January, rather than this December, for > obvious reasons. > > KPFA News: San Francisco Supes Meet Re Who Will Be Mayor, 4:00 P.M. > Tuesday, City Hall > http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/11/15/18664255.php > > And BTY, once again, this is some of the only news produced AT KPFA > rather than ABOUT KPFA that's going to appear in a web search FOR > KPFA now, or before now, for that matter. The others that appear > are my Weekend News segments, mostly about East/Central Africa, but > news at least, is just a couple steps away from getting this done. > They have the transcripts; they have the mp3s; they have the host's > summary intros. They just need to get them up on the appropriate > KPFA pages, with discreet URLS, tags, and headlines, which would > make it possible to find them by subject search, in a Web browser, > and without listening to the whole newscast. > > > > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32(a)aim.com> > wrote: > Hi all, > > TURN OUT TOMORROW 4PM CITY HALL > > Turn out tomorrow Tuesday Nov 16, City Hall, Rm 250 (main chamber) > 4pm to support John Avalos' legislation triggering the Board of > Supervisors to choose a new mayor now, not in January. > > Because San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has won the Lieutenant > Governor's race, and will take that office in early January, the > Board of Supervisors must appoint his replacement. > > But there is a -big- problem. Downtown big business and real estate > developer interests allied with Newsom, are maneuvering behind the > scenes in private meetings with our City supervisors, to convince > them to back down, not make this choice, and instead delay the > decision so that it will be made by the far less experienced newly > elected Board of Supervisors in January. > > This is extremely alarming. San Francisco is in the midst of one of > the worst budget crises in its history, and it is vital that the > current Board of Supervisors make a choice this month for Mayor > Newsom's replacement, so that the Board and new Mayor can begin > working together right now to assure the best possible budget deal > for the upcoming year. We cannot afford a two month delay during > which secret backroom politics, influenced by corporations and > developers, will determine how our Mayor is chosen. The budget > deeply impacts every issue that we are working on as organizers. > > To avoid this very bad outcome, Supervisor John Avalos and others > have put forward a measure to be voted on by the Board of > Supervisors tomorrow, Tue, Nov 16, in an open hearing at 4pm, > during which we will be able to speak on that item. Supervisor > Avalos' measure will make sure that the Board makes a choice for > Mayor right away and in front of the people of San Francisco. > > So turn out tomorrow Tuesday Nov 16, City Hall, Rm 250 (main > chamber) 4pm to support John Avalos' legislation triggering the > Board of Supervisors to choose a new mayor now, not in January. > > If you absolutely can't make it, call Board President David Chiu > TODAY! > > The President of the Board of Supervisors, David Chiu, will be the > key swing vote on this measure and may hesitate to support it > because he is experiencing high lobbying pressure from downtown > elites. > > It is vital that we flood Board President Chiu's office with phone > calls -today- insisting that he take a stand for the public good > and vote in favor of the current Board choosing our new Mayor right > away, in an open public process. > > CALL David Chiu at: > > 415-554-7450 > > WITH THE MESSAGE: > > "Please vote in favor of Supervisor Avalos' measure to convene the > current Board of Supervisors, in a public hearing, to choose the > new Mayor of San Francisco this month!" > > If you are calling after hours, or get a recording, leave your > message as voice mail. > > If you get a busy signal, call David Chiu's staff at either: > > 415-554-7451 or 415-554-7453 > > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo > > > > -- > Sincerely, > Ann Garrison > Independent Journalist, > 415-287-4259 > cell: 415-240-2761 > _______________________________________________ > San Francisco Green Party Active Members List > To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active

4 4

[Sustain] CRITICAL! Tomorrow 4pm City Hall Rm 250 SPEAK Demand New Mayor Choice Now
by Eric Brooks 16 Nov '10

16 Nov '10

Hi all, TURN OUT TOMORROW 4PM CITY HALL Turn out tomorrow Tuesday Nov 16, City Hall, Rm 250 (main chamber) 4pm to support John Avalos' legislation triggering the Board of Supervisors to choose a new mayor now, not in January. Because San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has won the Lieutenant Governor's race, and will take that office in early January, the Board of Supervisors must appoint his replacement. But there is a -big- problem. Downtown big business and real estate developer interests allied with Newsom, are maneuvering behind the scenes in private meetings with our City supervisors, to convince them to back down, not make this choice, and instead delay the decision so that it will be made by the far less experienced newly elected Board of Supervisors in January. This is extremely alarming. San Francisco is in the midst of one of the worst budget crises in its history, and it is vital that the current Board of Supervisors make a choice this month for Mayor Newsom's replacement, so that the Board and new Mayor can begin working together right now to assure the best possible budget deal for the upcoming year. We cannot afford a two month delay during which secret backroom politics, influenced by corporations and developers, will determine how our Mayor is chosen. The budget deeply impacts every issue that we are working on as organizers. To avoid this very bad outcome, Supervisor John Avalos and others have put forward a measure to be voted on by the Board of Supervisors tomorrow, Tue, Nov 16, in an open hearing at 4pm, during which we will be able to speak on that item. Supervisor Avalos' measure will make sure that the Board makes a choice for Mayor right away and in front of the people of San Francisco. So turn out tomorrow Tuesday Nov 16, City Hall, Rm 250 (main chamber) 4pm to support John Avalos' legislation triggering the Board of Supervisors to choose a new mayor now, not in January. If you absolutely can't make it, call Board President David Chiu TODAY! The President of the Board of Supervisors, David Chiu, will be the key swing vote on this measure and may hesitate to support it because he is experiencing high lobbying pressure from downtown elites. It is vital that we flood Board President Chiu's office with phone calls -today- insisting that he take a stand for the public good and vote in favor of the current Board choosing our new Mayor right away, in an open public process. CALL David Chiu at: 415-554-7450 WITH THE MESSAGE: "Please vote in favor of Supervisor Avalos' measure to convene the current Board of Supervisors, in a public hearing, to choose the new Mayor of San Francisco this month!" If you are calling after hours, or get a recording, leave your message as voice mail. If you get a busy signal, call David Chiu's staff at either: 415-554-7451 or 415-554-7453

2 3

Re: [Sustain] [Transpo] CRITICAL! Tomorrow 4pm City Hall Rm 250 SPEAK Demand New Mayor Choice Now
by Eric Brooks 16 Nov '10

16 Nov '10

If we push hard enough, Chiu might well back down. He will lose a lot of progressive support if he delays this vote for his own benefit at the behest of developers. On 11/15/2010 4:18 PM, Ann Garrison wrote: > Seems pretty clear that, should the Board insist on voting, Chiu wants > them to do so in January, rather than this December, for obvious reasons. > > *KPFA News: San Francisco Supes Meet Re Who Will Be Mayor, 4:00 P.M. > Tuesday, City Hall* > http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/11/15/18664255.php > > And BTY, once again, this is some of the only news produced AT KPFA > rather than ABOUT KPFA that's going to appear in a web search FOR KPFA > now, or before now, for that matter. The others that appear are my > Weekend News segments, mostly about East/Central Africa, but news at > least, is just a couple steps away from getting this done. They have > the transcripts; they have the mp3s; they have the host's summary > intros. They just need to get them up on the appropriate KPFA pages, > with discreet URLS, tags, and headlines, which would make it possible > to find them by subject search, in a Web browser, and without > listening to the whole newscast. > > > > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32(a)aim.com > <mailto:brookse32@aim.com>> wrote: > > Hi all, > > TURN OUT TOMORROW 4PM CITY HALL > > Turn out tomorrow Tuesday Nov 16, City Hall, Rm 250 (main chamber) > 4pm to support John Avalos' legislation triggering the Board of > Supervisors to choose a new mayor now, not in January. > > Because San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has won the Lieutenant > Governor's race, and will take that office in early January, the > Board of Supervisors must appoint his replacement. > > But there is a -big- problem. Downtown big business and real > estate developer interests allied with Newsom, are maneuvering > behind the scenes in private meetings with our City supervisors, > to convince them to back down, not make this choice, and instead > delay the decision so that it will be made by the far less > experienced newly elected Board of Supervisors in January. > > This is extremely alarming. San Francisco is in the midst of one > of the worst budget crises in its history, and it is vital that > the current Board of Supervisors make a choice this month for > Mayor Newsom's replacement, so that the Board and new Mayor can > begin working together right now to assure the best possible > budget deal for the upcoming year. We cannot afford a two month > delay during which secret backroom politics, influenced by > corporations and developers, will determine how our Mayor is > chosen. The budget deeply impacts every issue that we are working > on as organizers. > > To avoid this very bad outcome, Supervisor John Avalos and others > have put forward a measure to be voted on by the Board of > Supervisors tomorrow, Tue, Nov 16, in an open hearing at 4pm, > during which we will be able to speak on that item. Supervisor > Avalos' measure will make sure that the Board makes a choice for > Mayor right away and in front of the people of San Francisco. > > So turn out tomorrow Tuesday Nov 16, City Hall, Rm 250 (main > chamber) 4pm to support John Avalos' legislation triggering the > Board of Supervisors to choose a new mayor now, not in January. > > If you absolutely can't make it, call Board President David Chiu > TODAY! > > The President of the Board of Supervisors, David Chiu, will be the > key swing vote on this measure and may hesitate to support it > because he is experiencing high lobbying pressure from downtown > elites. > > It is vital that we flood Board President Chiu's office with phone > calls -today- insisting that he take a stand for the public good > and vote in favor of the current Board choosing our new Mayor > right away, in an open public process. > > CALL David Chiu at: > > 415-554-7450 > > WITH THE MESSAGE: > > "Please vote in favor of Supervisor Avalos' measure to convene the > current Board of Supervisors, in a public hearing, to choose the > new Mayor of San Francisco this month!" > > If you are calling after hours, or get a recording, leave your > message as voice mail. > > If you get a busy signal, call David Chiu's staff at either: > > 415-554-7451 or 415-554-7453 > > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org <mailto:Transpo@sfgreens.org> > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo > > > > > -- > Sincerely, > Ann Garrison > Independent Journalist, > 415-287-4259 > cell: 415-240-2761

1 0

[Sustain] IMPORTANT: CEQA Continued: Alioto-Pier CEQA Measure Now Continued To December 6th
by Eric Brooks 15 Nov '10

15 Nov '10

Hey gang, The Alioto-Pier CEQA item was just continued to the December 6 Land Use meeting. No need now to show up today to testify. Eric B

1 0

[Sustain] (Correction 1pm) Reminder - Monday: Alioto-Pier Attack On CEQA In Land Use Committee
by Eric Brooks 13 Nov '10

13 Nov '10

Michela Alioto-Pier's legislation to limit local access to CEQA procedures is in the SF Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee this Monday, SF City Hall Room 263, 1pm. Full Agenda at: http://www.sfbos.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=37172 Eric B

1 0