August 2005 - Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

home depot resolution redone
by Jerry Path 17 Aug '05

17 Aug '05

Thanks Sue - here is a stab at it - I would keep the first form as motivation. Whereas, the proposed Home Depot at Cortland and Bayshore would add unacceptable levels of traffic and, Whereas, this traffic would result in severe congestion, air pollution with its attendant health problems, and also safety and access problems for pedestrians, and Whereas, city-wide Public Transit would also be effected as the 24 Divisadero and the 67 Bernal Heights uses Cortland. And also the 9 San Bruno uses Bayshore, and Whereas, Home Depot promises new jobs, it will also put existing (often locally owned) small firms out of business, taking money out of the community and eliminating jobs, and Whereas, Home Depot boasts of its "Union-free" environment having no unions in its 805 stores Therefore, be it resolved that the San Francisco Green Party advise the Board of Supervisors to reject the Planning Commission's approval of Home Depot's EIR - and demand a better deal for the citizens of San Francisco. Jerry Path pjrry(a)igc.org Why Wait? Move to EarthLink.

2 1

Re: [Transpo] Mike Ellzey, Principal Prop G Proponent
by Jym Dyer 16 Aug '05

16 Aug '05

> The "left" is hardly heralding this as a coup for the "left." =v= I can't speak for Kathy, but I did notice the use of the word "par-TAY," which would seem to herald something or other. > ... the proposition does do away with the transmogrification > of MLK Drive from a two-way road to a four-way expressway, > much like Kesar Drive. =v= Ellzey's assurances to the SPUR board suggest otherwise. <_Jym_>

1 0

Re: [Transpo] Fw: agenda for August 23? -- resurfacing bonds
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 16 Aug '05

16 Aug '05

Dave Snyder, I notice that you want the TWG to review the resurfacing bonds at our next meeting. Do you have an abstract of the bond? Or do you know the letter so that I can look it up and look at it? Off hand, I would think the Green Party should oppose it as Dave Wilbur is recommending that we oppose all bonds as regressive tax measures. Sue -- Susan King <funking(a)mindspring.com> wrote: I put the agenda up. Please let me know if you would like me to change the format. I did not have a formal agenda to post, but could do that if you drafted an agenda with times, etc. If not, at least folks know about the meeting and what will be discussed. peace, ssuan > From: "susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com" <susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com> > Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:16:47 GMT > To: funking(a)mindspring.com > Cc: jmc(a)sfgreens.org > Subject: Re: [Transpo] Fw: agenda for August 23? > > Susan, I don't have an account so I cannot add this agenda to the website. > > SUe > > -- Susan King <funking(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > Also, be sure to add the final agenda to the website. Nicole, email update > editor, depends on the website listings for events for the newsletter. > > peace, > ssuan > >> From: Susan King <funking(a)mindspring.com> >> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:35:55 -0700 >> To: "susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com" <susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com>, >> <dave(a)livablecity.org>, <transpo(a)sfgreens.org> >> Subject: Re: [Transpo] Fw: agenda for August 23? >> >> Please reveiw the Resurfacing Bond on the Nov ballot. the SFGP GM will >> depend on your committee to review both transpo related initiatives, GG >> Park/MLK and the Resurfacing bond. >> >> Any update on the blue angels efforts? I think that is a great effort for us >> to get behind. We could get Ross to introduce something opposing the Blue >> Angels and tie this into our overall position against war and militarism. >> >> Car Free day Sept 22?? >> >> DPT issue to get universal code enforcement for sidewalk parking, etc.??? >> >> peace >> susan >> >>> From: "susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com" <susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com> >>> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:56:38 GMT >>> To: dave(a)livablecity.org, transpo(a)sfgreens.org >>> Subject: [Transpo] Fw: agenda for August 23? >>> >>> Dave, >>> >>> I realize I should have sent this to you also as you wanted to come to the >>> next TWG meeting to discuss the SPUR documents. >>> >>> Sue >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- >>> What's our agenda? >>> >>> 1) Planning our next event -- Ross wants it to be in sometime around >>> mid-September as there's something at the Board of Supervisors related to it >>> about then, and then he wants the peak oil hearing to follow that; >>> >>> 2) Emily Drennen wants an endorsement in her efforts to be appointed to the >>> MTA; >>> >>> 3) the SPUR documents? I have not been able to forward them from my yahoo >>> account, perhaps JMC can forward them to all of us at transpo(a)sfgreens.org >>> >>> 4) endorsment of the MLK Drive ballot measure which was finalized yesterday? >>> >>> What else? >>> >>> Sue >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Transpo mailing list >>> Transpo(a)sfgreens.org >>> https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Transpo mailing list >> Transpo(a)sfgreens.org >> https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo > >

1 0

Re: [Transpo] home depot resolution
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 16 Aug '05

16 Aug '05

Hi Jerry, I recommend putting this in resolution form with "whereas" and "therefore be it" and "Resolved." If I have some time tonight, maybe I can work on it a little, but I may not. Sue -- "Jerry Path" <pjrry(a)igc.org> wrote: Here is a rough draft of the resolution I plan to bring to the General Meeting. On July 28th, 2005, the City Planning Commission approved the Environmental Impact Review submitted by Home Depot for a big box store (150,000 sq.ft.) at the corner of Bayshore and Cortland. This means that construction can begin on the store unless the Board of Supervisors upholds an appeal by the area small businesses as soon as Sept. 13th. Local activists believe that the store with its 3 story 100,000 sq. ft. parking garage would add 800 -1200 more cars per hour to local streets at peak times. Of course this would result in severe congestion, air pollution with its attendant health problems (already highest rates of asthma in the city in the Bay view) safety and access problems for pedestrians etc. Public Transit would also be effected as the 24 Divisadero uses Cortland ave. While Home Depot promises new jobs, it will also put existing (often locally owned) small firms out of business eliminating jobs. Home Depot also boasts of its "union free" philosophy. There are no unions in its 805 U.S. stores. This means that although Home Depot claims it will provide 100 jobs for local residents (40 full time) these jobs will be at will meaning employees can be fired at any time. There is also no guarantee of 100 jobs for residents - only a "good faith" agreement without any teeth. In presenting its case - Home Depot admitted there would be severe environmental problems which could not be mitigated. However they claimed these problems would be more than balanced by the jobs it would bring to the community - especially the Bayview which is in dire need of jobs and by bringing increased revenue to the city in the form of additional sales tax. Of course Home Depot likes to present the situation in this way - Bernal Heights with its environmental concerns vs the Bayview with its needs for jobs. From this point of view it looks like concerns for the environment are in opposition to the need for jobs. However if we truly had the will to do something about our ecological problems this would mean millions of jobs - but the problem is this addresses the needs of people, not of giant corporations. So this is another way of looking at the problem - Home Depot holding its economic hammer over the city and the needs of its residents. We need to stand up to Home Depot and fight for the rights and needs of all the people of S.F. Tell the Board of Supervisors to reject the Planning commission's approval of Home Depot's EIR - and demand a better deal for the citizens of S.F. Jerry Path pjrry(a)igc.org Why Wait? Move to EarthLink. _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

1 0

home depot resolution
by Jerry Path 16 Aug '05

16 Aug '05

Here is a rough draft of the resolution I plan to bring to the General Meeting. On July 28th, 2005, the City Planning Commission approved the Environmental Impact Review submitted by Home Depot for a big box store (150,000 sq.ft.) at the corner of Bayshore and Cortland. This means that construction can begin on the store unless the Board of Supervisors upholds an appeal by the area small businesses as soon as Sept. 13th. Local activists believe that the store with its 3 story 100,000 sq. ft. parking garage would add 800 -1200 more cars per hour to local streets at peak times. Of course this would result in severe congestion, air pollution with its attendant health problems (already highest rates of asthma in the city in the Bay view) safety and access problems for pedestrians etc. Public Transit would also be effected as the 24 Divisadero uses Cortland ave. While Home Depot promises new jobs, it will also put existing (often locally owned) small firms out of business eliminating jobs. Home Depot also boasts of its "union free" philosophy. There are no unions in its 805 U.S. stores. This means that although Home Depot claims it will provide 100 jobs for local residents (40 full time) these jobs will be at will meaning employees can be fired at any time. There is also no guarantee of 100 jobs for residents - only a "good faith" agreement without any teeth. In presenting its case - Home Depot admitted there would be severe environmental problems which could not be mitigated. However they claimed these problems would be more than balanced by the jobs it would bring to the community - especially the Bayview which is in dire need of jobs and by bringing increased revenue to the city in the form of additional sales tax. Of course Home Depot likes to present the situation in this way - Bernal Heights with its environmental concerns vs the Bayview with its needs for jobs. From this point of view it looks like concerns for the environment are in opposition to the need for jobs. However if we truly had the will to do something about our ecological problems this would mean millions of jobs - but the problem is this addresses the needs of people, not of giant corporations. So this is another way of looking at the problem - Home Depot holding its economic hammer over the city and the needs of its residents. We need to stand up to Home Depot and fight for the rights and needs of all the people of S.F. Tell the Board of Supervisors to reject the Planning commission's approval of Home Depot's EIR - and demand a better deal for the citizens of S.F. Jerry Path pjrry(a)igc.org Why Wait? Move to EarthLink.

1 0

home depot
by Jerry Path 16 Aug '05

16 Aug '05

Hi all, At the last meeting of the transportation working group I brought up the issue of Home Depot's plan for a new big box store at Cortland and Bayview. Since I did not have a resolution ready and we because we felt we needed further information, we put off making a decision on this matter. Shortly after our meeting the City Planning Commission met and approved Home Depot's EIR.. The only thing stopping them now is an appeal by local small businesses to the Board of Supervisors on Sept. 13. I have asked for time to present a resolution against Home Depot at our up coming General Meeting. I have 10 minutes - which I don't feel is nearly enough, but probably everyone feels this way. I would have rather dealt with this by going through our working group, but since we have only 3 weeks I feel we have to move as soon as possible. Later tonite, I plan on posting a rough draft of the resolution that I will be bringing to the General Meeting for your ideas and comments. Jerry Path Jerry Path pjrry(a)igc.org Why Wait? Move to EarthLink.

1 0

Emily Drennen
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 15 Aug '05

15 Aug '05

Hello Everyone, I left a message with Emily Drennen at WALK SF today, inviting her to come to our next TWG meeting (only for the first part), in that she is seeking endorsements for her efforts to get appointed to the MTA Board of Directors. You can view her resume at emilydrennen.org. Sue

1 0

Re: [Transpo] Mike Ellzey, Principal Prop G Proponent
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 15 Aug '05

15 Aug '05

Kathy, The "left" is hardly heralding this as a coup for the "left." Like Ross said at the meeting you attended by speakerphone, "It's a shit sandwich, and we all have to take a bite out of it." None of us are happy having an entrance-exit in the park, but the proposition does do away with the transmogrification of MLK Drive from a two-way road to a four-way expressway, much like Kesar Drive. Sue -- Katherine Roberts <grrlfriday(a)scorcher.org> wrote: Dear D5-ers SFBCers, and Green Party people: I wanted to update you on some recent developments in the Prop G campaign. I was called last week by someone on the SPUR board who asked me to represent the opposing viewpoint on Prop G for the SPUR endorsement meeting. Since I am still in New York, he agreed to put me on speakerphone. Imagine my surprise when he called me the next day and told me that the person I would be debating against was...Mike Ellzey, the head of Warren Hellman's front group, the MCCP. As soon as I realized that Ellzey is the one who is going around stumping for this initiative, which is being heralded as a coup for the left, any hopes I had about the possible upside of this initiative promptly vanished. My suspicions were confirmed even further during Ellzey's presentation, when he was attempting to sell Prop G to the SPUR board as community-friendly, and giving the people the power to design MLK Drive the way WE want it. He said, by leaving it in its current configuration, we leave the door open to add transit lanes, bike lanes, whatever the community wants. Then a SPUR board member asked him, "What if, when the Academy of Sciences opens in 2007, the number of cars entering the south pod of the garage via MLK is so great that we realize the current configuration cannot accommodate them? Will we then be able to go back to the ballot and overturn this initiative, and re-dedicate those lanes to cars?" "Of course," Ellzey assured him. "That won't be a problem at all." I think anyone who believes this ballot initiative is a good thing is living in some kind of a pipe dream. As long as the southern entrance exists (and this initiative AMENDS Prop J to legalize that entrance in a way it was never legal before), Prop G is at best] a stopgap measure until MLK turns into the nightmare this initiative pretends to prevent. The reality is, until the Academy opens, there is no real reason to widen MLK anyway. So the likelihood is that construction on MLK would have waited til then no matter what we did. Once it does open, given the direction SF is moving in, to accommodate more and more and more cars all the time, it is highly doubtful that any effort to prevent its being widened would succeed. For the record, I suggested that the section amending Prop J be removed from Prop G, and was told something to the effect of "The City Attorney won't allow it." When the City Attorney starts telling us what we can and can't have on the ballot... well, to me, that's really scary. That, in itself, is a reason to oppose this thing. Sincerely, Kathy _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

1 0

Mike Ellzey, Principal Prop G Proponent
by Katherine Roberts 15 Aug '05

15 Aug '05

Dear D5-ers SFBCers, and Green Party people: I wanted to update you on some recent developments in the Prop G campaign. I was called last week by someone on the SPUR board who asked me to represent the opposing viewpoint on Prop G for the SPUR endorsement meeting. Since I am still in New York, he agreed to put me on speakerphone. Imagine my surprise when he called me the next day and told me that the person I would be debating against was...Mike Ellzey, the head of Warren Hellman's front group, the MCCP. As soon as I realized that Ellzey is the one who is going around stumping for this initiative, which is being heralded as a coup for the left, any hopes I had about the possible upside of this initiative promptly vanished. My suspicions were confirmed even further during Ellzey's presentation, when he was attempting to sell Prop G to the SPUR board as community-friendly, and giving the people the power to design MLK Drive the way WE want it. He said, by leaving it in its current configuration, we leave the door open to add transit lanes, bike lanes, whatever the community wants. Then a SPUR board member asked him, "What if, when the Academy of Sciences opens in 2007, the number of cars entering the south pod of the garage via MLK is so great that we realize the current configuration cannot accommodate them? Will we then be able to go back to the ballot and overturn this initiative, and re-dedicate those lanes to cars?" "Of course," Ellzey assured him. "That won't be a problem at all." I think anyone who believes this ballot initiative is a good thing is living in some kind of a pipe dream. As long as the southern entrance exists (and this initiative AMENDS Prop J to legalize that entrance in a way it was never legal before), Prop G is at best] a stopgap measure until MLK turns into the nightmare this initiative pretends to prevent. The reality is, until the Academy opens, there is no real reason to widen MLK anyway. So the likelihood is that construction on MLK would have waited til then no matter what we did. Once it does open, given the direction SF is moving in, to accommodate more and more and more cars all the time, it is highly doubtful that any effort to prevent its being widened would succeed. For the record, I suggested that the section amending Prop J be removed from Prop G, and was told something to the effect of "The City Attorney won't allow it." When the City Attorney starts telling us what we can and can't have on the ballot... well, to me, that's really scary. That, in itself, is a reason to oppose this thing. Sincerely, Kathy

1 0

Fw: Re: Reserving space in the Communiy Room of the Red Victorian B&B for an e vent with Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 12 Aug '05

12 Aug '05

Hi Regina and members of the TWG, Regina, we await word from you as to the best night to do this for Ross. Sami Sunchild writes that September 20, a Tuesday, is a possibility. However, I doubt that Ross would be free if the Board meeting were to go late, and I will NOT be free as I want to tape Richard Heinberg at New College that night. Sue Vaughan home: 668-3119 cell: 601-9297 ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Dear Susan Yes, we will be glad to accommodate your event at the Red Vic Peace Center. You are just the kind of people we want to have use our space to make a better world. Since you will be doing a screening, you perhaps want the darkness of evening for the projection. Which hours do you have in mind? For evenings, in addition to Sept 22, you could choose between Tues 20, Wed 21 or Fri 23. Just let us know as soon as possible and we'll put your event on our calendar. Also let us know the name of your event. Yes, it is satisfactory for you to divide donations with us 50-50, with a minimum guarantee for the Peace Center of $60. If you wish to make a meeting of the producers of your event with us, just let us know when you are ready and we will arrange a time. Peace and thank you from Sami Sunchild ___________________________ --- "susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com" <susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com> wrote: > Dear Sami, > > I met you two weeks ago. We discussed using your Community Room space to do a screening of the > documentary "The End of Suburbia," followed by a panel discussion with, among others, District 5 > Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi. > > We discussed doing this event on September 22, World Car-Free Day, but we would like to have a > few other dates in mid-September that could be available for this event because of the > supervisor's busy schedule. None of these dates should fall on Tuesday evening, as the > supervisor could be in his weekly Tuesday board meeting until quite late. > > I have CCed Supervisor Mirkarimi's aide, Regina Dick-Endrizzi, as she does his scheduling, and > the Transportation Working Group, as the members of this group will be helping to put on this > event. > > I can be free to meet with you almost any time between now and August 24, or after August 31, to > work out the details of this event. I also recall that the San Francisco Green Party will > divide donations with the Red Victorian B&B, with your business receiving a minimum of $60. > > Thank you so much. > > Sincerely, > Sue Vaughan > co-chair, Transportation Working Group of the San Francisco Green Party > home: (415) 668-3119 > cell: (415) 601-9297 > > Sami Sunchild NETWORKING THE WORLD FOR PEACE Sami(a)peacefulworldtravel.com www.peacefulworldtravel.com www.redvic.com, www.peacearts.com Red Victorian Peace Center Bed & Breakfast 1665 Haight Street, San Francisco CA 94117 ph 415 864 1978, fax 415 863 3293

1 0