http://tinyurl.com/3uko7
'It's a shameful abuse of power'
Viewed as "arrest evidence," the city will not return 338 bikes
seized until the court cases are resolved
BY GRAHAM RAYMAN
STAFF WRITER
Staff writer Daryl Khan contributed to this story.
Newsday | 09-Sep-2004
Katherine Roberts flies home to San Francisco today minus her
beloved folding bicycle.
Police arrested Roberts, 51, an alternative transportation
advocate, and confiscated her $2,000 custom bike on Aug. 29, a
day before the Republican National Convention opened. She is one
of hundreds of detainees who still haven't gotten their bicycles
back.
"It's a shameful abuse of power," said Roberts, who endured
nearly 30 hours in detention after her arrest by scooter police
on 37th Street. "We are all supposedly protected by the
Constitution. This shows they can rewrite the rules whenever
they want."
Police said yesterday they are holding 338 bicycles in a
Greenpoint warehouse, which, according to Roberts, was "like
they swept all the bikes off the streets."
A police spokesman said the confiscated bikes are viewed as
"arrest evidence" until the court cases are resolved, which in
Roberts' case means late October and another $300 air fare.
Matthew Roth of the bicycle advocacy group Times Up said the
group plans to appeal to Manhattan District Attorney Robert
Morgenthau and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. If that doesn't
work, he said, the group will file a motion before a judge.
"The bikes would not further a case or be used in a trial," Roth
said. "Holding the bikes is purely a punitive measure."
Roth said he believes the bicycles are being used as "leverage"
to induce people to take an adjournment in contemplation of
dismissal, which dismisses charges after six months.
"If bikes were not there, a lot more people would fight the
charges," he said.
Separately, a hearing is scheduled for today in the ongoing
legal case over detentions during the convention.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who told people to ride their bikes
during the convention, yesterday said: "There were bicyclists
who tried to stop traffic in this city and stop commerce and
stop people's rights to assemble and people's rights to express
themselves.
"We believe we acted appropriately and that given the situation
this city did what the law requires," he said.
Many cyclists disputed that characterization. "We were obeying
all traffic laws," said Anne Eller, 23, a doctoral student who
lost her bike on Aug. 29. "They say it's arrest evidence, but
evidence of what?"
"You have a right to demonstrate," said Ryan Kuonen, 33, a
comedy writer and nanny. "They were stopping people who weren't
doing anything."
As for Roberts, she spent two fruitless days in the rain, trying
to get to the Brooklyn warehouse. "When we finally got there,
having walked 10 long blocks through a depressed section, they
said they couldn't release it," she said.
________________________________________________________________
Staff writer Daryl Khan contributed to this story.
Here's the final language we decided to send to the supes:
> > The Transportation Working Group of the San
Francisco Green Party encourages you to adopt a
resolution of necessity for the City?s proposed
acquisition by eminent domain of property at 80 Natoma
Street in order for work on the extension of Caltrain
to the Transbay Terminal to commence.
The California state government gave land near the
Transbay Terminal to the City and County of San
Francisco on the condition that the Transbay Terminal
and Caltrain extension be built. In addition to the
rebuild of the terminal and the extension of Caltrain,
3,400 to 4,700 units of housing (35 percent
affordable) are currently slated to be built on this
land. If the City does not follow through with these
plans, the state might take back the land and with it
an opportunity to build desperately needed housing.
Additional reasons make it essential that the Board of
Supervisors take the necessary steps to see that
work can begin on the Transbay project as originally
planned. When it is completed, the Transbay
Terminal will be a regional hub serving Caltrain and
high-speed rail in addition to Muni, BART, Golden Gate
and AC Transit. It will also serve as a terminus for
eventual bus rapid transit systems established in
San Francisco and the region. Moreover, the extended
Caltrain will bring people to San Francisco from the
peninsula as well as from Bayview, Visitation Valley,
Potrero Hill and Dogpatch as there will be stations in
those neighborhoods. This expansion of electrified
train service will make it possible for more people to
travel without cars, thereby improving air quality
and lessening congestion. The 3,400 to 4,700 units of
housing near the terminal will also reduce the need
for
personal vehicles.
We also
encourage the City to return authority over the
project to the Transbay Joint Powers Authority. We
believe it was a mistake for the City to shift
authority from the TJPA to the San Francisco County
Transportation Authority in mid-August for several
reasons. First, as a part of this shift in authority,
the City will have to borrow money so that the SFCTA
can study an alternative that includes the
construction of a high-rise at 80 Natoma Street. The
TJPA has already found this alternative unacceptable.
Second, in shifting authority from the TJPA to the
TA, the City is violating the will of the voters as
expressed through the passage of Proposition K in
2003 and the passage of regional Measure 2 in 2004.
Third, the owner of the property at 80 Natoma Street, Jack
Myers, is simply attempting to extort more money from the City.
Allowing him to game the system and postpone
construction on the project as originally planned
risks exposing the City to
environmental lawsuits and cost overruns.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > John-Marc Chandonia
> > Susan Vaughan
> > Transportation Working Group Co-Chairs
on behalf of the SFGP Transportation Working Group
JMC
--
John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org)
http://www.dolorespark.org/
On our agenda for tonight, we'd like to finalize this letter to
supervisors (below), as well as the letter regarding the bike plan.
Also, if we have time, we can work more on the Transportation Plank.
It won't be up for another vote at the GM until next month, though,
due to the need to spend time on endorsement-related decisions.
JMC
----- Forwarded message from susan vaughan <susan_e_vaughan(a)yahoo.com> -----
> > >
> > >Transportation Working Group
> > San Francisco Green Party
> > August 31, 2004
> >
> > To the San Francisco Board of Supervisors:
> >
> > The Transportation Working Group of the San
Francisco Green Party encourages you to adopt a
resolution of necessity for the City?s proposed
acquisition by eminent domain of property at 80 Natoma
Street in order for work on the extension of Caltrain
to the Transbay Terminal to commence.
The California state government gave land near the
Transbay Terminal to the City and County of San
Francisco on the condition that the Transbay Terminal
and Caltrain extension be built. In addition to the
rebuild of the terminal and the extension of Caltrain,
3,400 to 4,700 units of housing (35 percent
affordable) are currently slated to be built on this
land. If the City does not follow through with these
plans, the state might take back the land and with it
an opportunity to build desperately needed housing.
Additional reasons make it essential that the Board of
Supervisors take the necessary steps to see that
work can begin on the Transbay project as originally
planned. When it is completed, the Transbay
Terminal will be a regional hub serving Caltrain and
high-speed rail in addition to Muni, BART, Golden Gate
and AC Transit. It will also serve as a terminus for
eventual bus rapid transit systems established in
San Francisco and the region. Moreover, the extended
Caltrain will bring people to San Francisco from the
peninsula as well as from Bayview, Visitation Valley,
Potrero Hill and Dogpatch as there will be stations in
those neighborhoods. This expansion of electrified
train service will make it possible for more people to
travel without cars, thereby improving air quality
and lessening congestion. The 3,400 to 4,700 units of
housing near the terminal will also reduce the need
for
personal vehicles.
Members of the Transportation Working Group also
encourage the City to return authority over the
project to the Transbay Joint Powers Authority. We
believe it was a mistake for the City to shift
authority from the TJPA to the San Francisco County
Transportation Authority in mid-August for several
reasons. First, as a part of this shift in authority,
the City will have to borrow money so that the SFCTA
can study an alternative that includes the
construction of a high-rise at 80 Natoma Street. The
TJPA has already found this alternative unacceptable.
Second, in shifting authority from the TJPA to the
TA, the City is violating the will of the voters as
expressed through the passage of Proposition K in
2003 and the passage of regional Measure 2 in 2004.
Third, allowing political intrigue to postpone
construction on the project as originally planned
risks
environmental lawsuits and cost overruns.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > John-Marc Chandonia
> > Susan Vaughan
> > Transportation Working Group Co-Chairs
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other
> providers!
> >
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
----- End forwarded message -----
--
John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org)
http://www.dolorespark.org/
