With superior name recognition, Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi is the front-runner in the September election to replace Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher.  But a Garamendi victory could spell disaster for a cause he has made a centerpiece of his campaign platform, and has supported throughout his whole career – the environment.  As Lieutenant Governor, Garamendi sits on the California State Lands Commission – a three-person body that wields enormous power on environmental issues.  Recently, Garamendi led the charge on the Commission to successfully kill Governor Schwarzenegger’s move to allow offshore oil drilling on the Pacific Coast – by a 2-1 vote.  If Garamendi gets elected to Congress, he will have to resign from the State Lands Commission – and Arnold will get to pick his successor.  Garamendi has the Sierra Club endorsement in this race, due to his campaign platform.  But will the environmental community be happy after he wins the seat, and his replacement potentially votes to allow offshore oil drilling?

In an election to become 435th in seniority in the U.S. House of Representatives, some of the leading candidates have been accused of “giving up” their current elected position – and jeopardizing progressive politics.  State Senator Mark DeSaulnier and Assembly member Joan Buchanan would both have to give up their seats in the legislature, which will necessitate another special election.  Some have argued that because Republicans continuously hold the state budget hostage, progressives cannot afford to lose a single Democratic seat in Sacramento.  But Democrats don’t have a two-thirds majority right now with DeSaulnier and Buchanan – so the impact of a vacancy would be at worst minimal.  Moreover, at least DeSaulnier is guaranteed to be replaced by a Democrat.

But who would replace John Garamendi?  The question has not received much attention – in part because no one really knows what a Lieutenant Governor does.  We all know that, like the Vice President, the Lieutenant Governor is next in line after the Governor.  But the Lieutenant Governor, by virtue of their elected position, also gets to sit on various bodies – such as the UC Board of Regents, the CSU Board of Trustees, the Ocean Protection Council, the California Emergeny Council and (most importantly) the State Lands Commission.

The State Lands Commission votes on crucial environmental issues, such as authorizing whether to allow offshore oil drilling.  And it only has three members: (1) the Lieutenant Governor, (2) the Controller (currently a Democrat, John Chiang) and (3) the Governor’s Finance Director.  If the Lieutenant Governor resigns – which Garamendi would do if he wins the election – the Governor would appoint his replacement, subject to confirmation by both houses of the state legislature.  On other commissions, allowing Schwarzenegger to fill a vacancy is not a big deal.  But here, Arnold would effectively get a 2-1 majority.

In the past few months, Schwarzenegger has attempted to resume offshore oil drilling, as a shameful and dishonest means of “raising revenue” for the state.  Forget, for a moment, the environmental consequences of such a move.  The revenue raised from “oil drilling leases” to companies would be minimal – because the Governor adamantly refuses to charge companies an oil severance tax, although Texas and Alaska have one.

California has not allowed offshore oil drilling for 41 years, since the Santa Barabara oil spill.  But it has become a hot topic in the Congressional race, in part because Garamendi has made it a central part of his campaign.  He takes credit for leading the charge at the State Lands Commission, and – by a two-to-one vote – stopped Arnold from selling the Ocean to oil companies.  Garamendi even started a Facebook group last June to put grassroots pressure on the issue – and generate free publicity for himself.

But the obvious question beckons – what would happen if Arnold controlled two of the three votes on the State Lands Commission?  Garamendi deserves credit for blocking offshore oil drilling, but he only has that power because he is Lieutenant Governor.  If he wins a seat in Congress, Arnold could appoint his replacement – who would then get a vote on the State Lands Commission.  The prospect of that happening is quite scary.

Garamendi had to answer that question at a recent meeting of the East Bay Young Democrats.  He replied the state legislature would “never allow it” to happen, because offshore oil drilling is such a crucial concern.  The Governor appoints the Lieutenant Governor if there is a vacancy, but both houses of the state legislature must confirm by a majority vote.  And because the legislature stood up to Arnold on this issue during the state budget, it is reasonable to expect them to raise such questions during the confirmation process.

However, there are three reasons why the state legislative “check” may not be enough.

First, the State Lands Commission deals with a lot more than just offshore oil drilling.  According to its website, its mission is “providing stewardship of the lands, waterways, and resources entrusted to its care through economic development, protection, preservation, and restoration.”  And like the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the State Lands Commission must deal with powerful corporate interests with a lot of money at stake.  Offshore oil drilling is one of them – but on low-profile environmental issues, Arnold’s two-to-one majority could get a free pass.

Second, political appointees frequently make promises to the state legislature during the confirmation process – only to break them later.  For example, CPUC Commissioner Rachelle Chong, promised in 2005 before her confirmation that she would be a consumer advocate against deceptive AT&T practices.  Now, she is trying to de-regulate Lifeline telephone service.

Third, state legislators may have their own agenda in approving Arnold’s appointee for Lieutenant Governor.  Everyone expects Schwarzenegger to appoint a Republican, and some have speculated it will be State Senator Abel Maldonado.  Democrats would be all too thrilled to get rid of Maldonado, because it would launch a special election for his Central Coast district – giving Democrats the chance to have a two-thirds majority in the Senate.  Legislators may calculate that the benefit of passing a budget without the GOP extremists holding the state hostage exceeds the possible dangers of offshore oil drilling.

Garamendi picked the wrong district to run for Congress, because he could have run in the 3rd District against Republican Dan Lungren.  But he took the easy way out by picking a blue district, which by sheer name recognition he could win a special election.  Now, as the Governor threatens to pursue offshore oil drilling and other threats, a Garamendi victory could undermine all the environmental work he has championed throughout his political career.

And that’s not a legacy that he would be proud of.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

(I’ve been meaning to promote this for a couple of days. Confirmations don’t always get the level of attention they should. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Low-income telephone customers won a brief reprieve last month, after the California Public Utilities Commission temporarily shelved a dangerous plan to gut the Universal Lifeline program.  But the battle is far from over.  While the AT&T backed plan is being “re-written” at the CPUC, the measure’s sponsor – Commissioner Rachelle Chong – is up for a confirmation vote by the State Senate to a full six-year term.  Yesterday, a diverse coalition of advocates went to Sacramento to lobby against Chong’s re-appointment.  Two residential hotel tenants from the Central City SRO Collaborative who were selected by their peers to go joined senior advocates, consumer groups, Latino leaders and faith based groups – to express strong opposition to a Commissioner who has disregarded the CPUC’s mandate to protect consumers.  After a grueling day at the State Capitol, we met with four of the five members of the Senate Rules Committee – and all four of San Francisco’s delegation in the legislature.  “I’m impressed,” said State Senator Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles), after we told him who else we had met with that day.  “I can’t even get a meeting with four of my colleagues in one day.”

The California Public Utilities Commission is one of the most powerful bodies in the state, with a budget as large as the state General Fund.  The five CPUC Commissioners are supposed to look out for consumers and regulate utility industries, but too often fall under the influence of PG&E and AT&T.  Appointed by the Governor to a six-year term, the only “check” on the CPUC’s power is a confirmation vote by the State Senate – but rejections almost never happen.  But we were going to try to stop Commissioner Chong.

Universal Lifeline is a program mandated by the state legislature – but regulated by the CPUC – which provides a “no-frills” telephone line at an affordable rate of $6.11/month – allowing poor people to keep in touch with doctor’s appointments, job interviews and loved ones.  But Commissioner Chong’s proposal replaced the flat rate with 55% of the highest market price (when AT&T has jacked up telephone rates.)  Only after hundreds of seniors and low-income tenants representing various organizations spoke out at multiple hearings did the CPUC suspend this proposal, but it will be back after Chong gets confirmed.

For Catalina Dean, who lives at the McAllister Hotel – where her income is $104/month under Care Not Cash – the idea of keeping Chong on the CPUC is absurd.  “What else is her job,” she asked, “if it’s not to look out for low-income people who need a phone?”

But other groups oppose Chong’s confirmation.  For the first time ever, the largest three consumer rights groups in California – TURN (The Utility Reform Network), UCAN (Utility Consumer Action Network) and the Greenlining Institute – are working together to oppose a CPUC nominee.  Hene Kelly of the California Alliance of Retired Americans (and San Francisco Senior Action Network) also joined us on the lobbying trip to oppose Chong, as did Minister L.B. Tatum of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Churches.

And Chong has alienated many ethnic-based groups who had once supported her on the CPUC to represent their community interests.  “When the Governor appointed Chong in 2005 [to complete Susan Kennedy’s unexpired term],” said Sam Kang of the Greenlining Institute, “a lot of us supported here confirmation.”  But leaders like Faith Bautista of the Mabuhay Alliance, and Viola Gonzales of the Latino Issues Forum were there to explain how Chong had not reached out to their communities.  “When I complained to Chong about diversity issues,” said Kang, “she said that it’s not her job to ‘enforce quotas.'”

Chong has also broken earlier promises, such as: (a) restoring consumer protections against deceptive AT&T marketing practices, (b) convening public hearings to solicit input for basic phone service and (c) protecting limited English proficient customers by requiring companies to provide contracts in the same language as marketing materials.

Our delegation met with the four state legislators who represent San Francisco – Senators Mark Leno and Leland Yee, and Assemblymembers Fiona Ma and Tom Ammiano – all of whom had submitted letters to the CPUC opposing Chong’s deregulation of Lifeline.  Although none of them are on the Senate Rules Committee, we dropped by to thank them for their support – and to ask them to help persuade their colleagues to oppose Chong.

We also met personally with four of the five members of the Senate Rules Committee – Democrats Darrell Steinberg (who is also President of the State Senate), Jenny Oropeza and Gil Cedillo, and Republican Bob Dutton.  We also met with the Chief of Staff of Republican Senator Sam Aanestad.  Before the State Senate gets to vote on Chong’s confirmation, it must first pass a hearing at the Senate Rules Committee – when our delegation will return to Sacramento, and speak out during public comment.

Chong’s confirmation was scheduled for next week’s Senate Rules Committee.  But the hearing has now been postponed – along with all of Governor Schwarzenegger’s appointments – due to State Senate President Darrell Steinberg’s strong disapproval of Arnold’s “blue-pencil” budget cuts that hurt the most vulnerable Californians.  Steinberg and other Democrats have filed a lawsuit against the Governor, alleging that these cuts are unconstitutional.  I thanked Steinberg for his leadership on Arnold’s budget cuts, and reminded him that Chong’s actions at the CPUC are hurting the very same people.

The other two Democrats on the Committee might vote “no” on confirming Chong.  Gil Cedillo has long been a champion for the poor (such as his controversial legislation to ban “patient dumping”), and we hope he will take a similar stand on CPUC appointees who are messing with Lifeline.  Jenny Oropeza has also been willing to take a stand on commissioners.  For example, she recently blocked the confirmation of a homophobic appointee to a public safety commission.  We hope she will also do the right thing here.

By being the point-person for deregulating Lifeline telephone service, Commissioner Rachelle Chong has jeopardized her tenure on the CPUC.  And for low-income people across California who are struggling in this economy, they’d be glad to see her go.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

In just 77 days, Maine voters can set the national agenda for marriage equality.  The state legislature passed same-sex marriage earlier this year, but now the right has collected enough signatures to put a referendum (“Question One”) on the November 2009 ballot – and has hired the same political consultants who successfully passed Proposition 8.  Supporters of marriage equality, however, are determined not to repeat the same mistakes we made in California – and will run an inclusive field campaign with a pro-active and pre-emptive message that (with the right resources) can bring about victory.  It does not cost a lot to win campaigns in Maine (only $3 million), and voter turnout is expected to only be about 500,000 people.  In other words, the campaign is winnable – but has not yet received the national attention it deserves.  While Californians are divided on whether to repeal Prop 8 in 2010 or 2012, they can set aside their differences by helping us win in Maine.  If we prevail on November 3rd, it will be easier to take our rights back in California.

The fight for marriage equality has made crucial progress in the past six months – from a court victory in Iowa to legislative victories in Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.  The American Taliban is scared of the inevitable trend toward justice, and views the upcoming Maine referendum as “ground zero” in this battle.  Groups like the National Organization for Marriage have already thrown massive resources into Maine, and are taking it seriously.  “The side that cares more will win,” said “No on 1” field director Monique Hoeflinger.

The LGBT community is aware that whenever marriage rights have been on the ballot, bigotry has prevailed.  Arizona rejected an anti-gay marriage amendment in 2006, but it threatened both marriage and domestic partnerships – and the campaign to defeat it focused on the latter.  Two years later, the right put another measure in Arizona that only banned marriage – and it passed by a 13-point margin.  In other words, winning a campaign in Maine at the ballot box will change the conversation – and help us repeal Proposition 8.

Everyone knows that defeating Prop 8 was winnable, but our side ran an awful campaign that – like Michael Dukakis – blew a seventeen-point lead.  It had a reactive message that did not anticipate or preempt attacks from the other side, failed to run an adequate field campaign that included California’s diverse constituencies, and suffered from an early complacency that led to its downfall.  But after meeting some leaders from Maine’s No on One campaign at the Netroots Nation conference in Pittsburgh last week, I am confident they have learned from our mistakes.

A Grassroots Campaign that is Proactive and Preemptive

Unlike in California, where gays and lesbians won marriage rights at the Supreme Court, in Maine the legislature and Governor passed it into law – less than three months ago.  It took an intense grassroots lobbying campaign to make this happen, and now the same Mainers who fought for their marriage rights are ready to defend them at the ballot box.  

On Election Day last November, marriage equality advocates stood outside polling places in Maine with pledge cards for the legislative campaign.  By the time the legislature voted six months later, they had identified 50,000 registered voters who support gay marriage – but what’s interesting is where most of them came from.  Lobbying efforts come down to persuading “swing” legislators, and most of them don’t represent liberal communities.  Most of the 50,000 identified supporters live in “swing” parts of the state, giving the campaign an advantage to make inroads in places that will decide this election.

Compare this with the “No on 8” field campaign in California, which focused almost entirely on gay neighborhoods in San Francisco and Los Angeles – while ceding the rest of the state to opponents.  Mobilizing your base is important (especially in a low-turnout election), but a winning campaign needs to have a visible presence in every part of the state.

“No on 8” also ran a reactive campaign that spent too much time responding to lies that the opposition hurled at us.  It was inexcusable to not anticipate the “gay-marriage-will-be-taught-in-public-schools” line, because it’s only been used as an attack from the right in every state that had a marriage amendment.  The “No on 1” effort has already planned a TV ad when the other side makes this argument.  And unlike in California, where we put a politician on the air (State Superintendent of Public Schools Jack O’Connell) to say it’s not true, the Maine campaign will counter that message with teachers and families.

People of faith have been part of the coalition for years – and are framing support for gay marriage in moral terms.  On the day after the California Supreme Court ruled for marriage equality, they had five press conferences throughout Maine lauding the decision.  This pro-active show of force actually put the religious right on the defensive.  If this is how they plan to run the “No on 1” campaign, it’s an effort worth giving your money to.

Not a Lot of Resources Required

At Netroots Nation, the “No on 1” campaign said they needed about $3 million to win a statewide campaign in Maine (“we’re a cheap date,” they said.)  All of us Californians laughed, because we spent $40 million last year only to have our marriage rights taken away.  But it’s not just how much money a campaign spends, but whether they use their resources wisely – and when the money comes in.  “No on 8” ultimately outspent the opposition, but too much of the funds came in late in the game – when there was a tangible fear of losing.  In Maine, it’s important to send a contribution before Labor Day – so the campaign can hire enough field directors that requires weeks of hard work.

Mainers have a “live-and-let-live” approach, but they don’t like outsiders trying to buy the election process.  Most of the “No on 1” money has come from Maine residents, in small contributions from supporters of the legislative campaign to pass marriage equality.  The opposition has already raised $343,000 – and all but $2,000 from four big donors: $160,000 from the New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage, $100,000 from the Roman Catholic diocese of Portland, $50,000 from the Knights of Columbus and $31,000 from Focus on the Family Maine.  No sign yet if the Mormons are sending in their millions from Utah, but when they do I hope to see more creative YouTube spots like this one.

Finally, the “No on 1” campaign is inviting volunteers to come “vacation” in Maine – where they will put you up in the homes of supporters.  Help is especially needed during the first week of October, when early absentee ballots get mailed out.  Volunteers should go to the campaign website, and let them know when they plan to visit the state.  This will be a campaign mostly run by Maine residents, but unpaid assistance from those passionate for marriage equality are welcome.

In California, gay marriage supporters who plan to repeal Prop 8 at the ballot box are deeply divided between doing it in 2010 – or in 2012.  Equality California has endorsed 2012, in part because their donors do not feel confident winning in 2010 is possible.  But grass-roots supporters at the Courage Campaign want to try next year.  It’s a stupid internecine fight that threatens to hurt the LGBT community, when we should all be working together.

I’m undecided about 2010 or 2012, and am willing to be persuaded either way.  But there’s one thing I know for sure – defending marriage equality in Maine in 2009 will make it easier to repeal Prop 8, regardless of what year it gets on the ballot.  Californians who believe in marriage equality have a moral responsibility to help out the Maine effort.  Depending on my vacation schedule and budget, I plan to fly out there in a few weeks.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

It’s Wednesday morning, and I have packed my bags for a long flight to Pittsburgh to attend Netroots Nation.  It will be my third year going as a blogger from Beyond Chron – but my first as a speaker.  Evan Coren, who parlayed his blog activism to win a seat on the City Council in Columbia, Maryland has recruited me for a panel discussion on Friday afternoon called Local Blogs: Covering City and County Government and Empowering Activism.  We will be joined by panelists from Philadelphia, Chicago and New Orleans – for a superb line-up of bloggers who play a key role in their local governments.  The following is my story about covering San Francisco politics …

Local government has a bigger impact on our lives than most of us realize.  As one local candidate for public office once said, “local government can make the difference between an unmitigated disaster – and just a regular disaster.”  The big decisions are made at the federal and state level, but local government is where the rubber hits the road – where we make decisions like allocating stimulus money, or blunt the damage of draconian budget cuts that come from the top.  It’s where zoning laws can make a crucial difference in what gets built in your community.  Local politicians are far more accessible – and a small but vocal group of citizens can show up at City Hall and have enormous power.

Bloggers play a crucial role – not only to mobilize community activists around a common issue, but to spread information about what goes on in local government.  As newspapers cut back on their staff and cover local municipal meetings with less and less frequency, often the only way people can learn about a critical hearing in their neighborhood is through a blog.  And it’s the reason why we started Beyond Chron for San Francisco.

Beyond Chron is unusual for most liberal blogs, in that we are published by a local non-profit organization – the Tenderloin Housing Clinic – that has incorporated it into the type of work that we do.  It allows me to get paid for what I write, which is a huge advantage relative to most blogs that are 100% volunteer operated.

The Tenderloin Housing Clinic – and its Executive Director, Randy Shaw – has played a key role in San Francisco for 29 years.  Founded to give free legal advice to low-income tenants in the City’s most impoverished Downtown neighborhood, we have expanded our mission to provide money management services for clients on government assistance, manage fifteen residential hotels that serve as the main housing referral for the City’s homeless, and community organizing to improve the life of Tenderloin residents.  Randy has written three books – The Activist’s Handbook, Renewing America and the recent Beyond the Fields, which chronicles the legacy of Cesar Chavez.

The San Francisco Chronicle has long been the bane of progressive activists in the City – and we have often made fun of it.  But because it’s the Bay Area only “paper of record,” whatever makes it in the Chronicle dominates news coverage for the next few days – to the detriment of tenant activists.  It became most apparent in the 2003 Mayoral election, when the Chronicle’s coverage of the Newsom-Gonzalez race was akin to how Fox News covered the Bush-Kerry race.  We had to fight back, and in April 2004 started Beyond Chron.  We are now one of the top local San Francisco blogs.

I was in law school when Randy started Beyond Chron, but had worked as a community organizer at the Tenderloin Housing Clinic from 2000 to 2003.  When I graduated from law school in 2006, I joined Beyond Chron as the Managing Editor – where I have been working ever since (despite having passed the California Bar Exam on the first try!)

Most recently, I have done extensive work at Beyond Chron analyzing the San Francisco budget.  In these tough times, every city government is going through painful budget cuts – but in San Francisco we have been hit by California’s budget crisis (Netroots Nation will also have a panel discussion Saturday on the state budget.)  Moreover, non-profits like the Tenderloin Housing Clinic are always a “political football” during budget season between the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors – so we fully expected to see drastic cuts from Gavin Newsom.

Add the fact that we have a dysfunctional city government culture – where the Mayor refuses to engage the Board of Supervisors, Gavin Newsom is running for Governor and is preparing every move with an eye on the statewide electorate – and we have a genuine recipe for disaster.

On June 1st, Newsom released his budget proposal for the 2009-2010 fiscal year – which the Supervisors then have a month to scrutinize and offer amendments.  In typical Newsom fashion, he spent an hour going through details – in a wonkish sounding presentation that sounds very impressive for those unaware of the context.  His budget would have no tax increases, no layoffs of police and firefighters and only $43 million in Health Department cuts (as opposed to the much higher numbers we were afraid of.)  And besides, said Newsom, he cut 28% out of the Mayor’s Office.

It sounded too good to be true, because it was.  Not laying off police or firefighters sells well to Southern California voters – but meanwhile the City has a $500 million deficit.  After his speech in front of a packed press conference, most reporters simply turned to members of the Board of Supervisors and got a quote or two reacting to the Mayor’s speech.  I didn’t see the point, because the Supervisors didn’t know anything more than we did.  So I picked up the Mayor’s budget, and tried something revolutionary – I read it.

Newsom wasn’t cutting $43 million out of Public Health – it was over $100 million.  And the Mayor’s Office was actually getting a 60% increase in funding, although most of that was from federal grant money that the office would dole out.  He was downsizing his staff – but only by 8%, and those positions were just being re-allocated to other City agencies.  In other words, the Mayor lied – and had the nerve to think he could get away with it.  And he almost did, since no one else in the media bothered to read the budget.

I like to tell this story, because it shows how easy it is for bloggers willing to put in the hard work to break a significant story at the local level – because the traditional media has abdicated its responsibility.  Over the next several weeks, I attended numerous Budget Committee hearings at City Hall – and pored over the Budget Analyst’s reports on City departments.  Beyond Chron became one of the “go-to” websites for those wanting to follow the San Francisco budget, and I am proud of the work we put into that effort.

A month later, an unprecedented $43.7 million in crucial programs that serve the City’s poor were saved by the Board of Supervisors – thanks to the hard work of community organizers to fight cuts in health & human services.  But the process was deeply flawed; much of the Mayor’s pet projects remain, and the Fire Department – despite getting a $6 million cut – is still bloated and top-heavy.  And now that we got more bad news from the state budget, San Francisco has to make $18 million in mid-year cuts – with probably more down the line.

It’s why we still need local political blogs … and why the work you do to cover City Hall in your own community is crucial, and can have a decisive impact in peoples’ lives.

Please join us on Friday at 1:30 p.m. in Room 315/316 at the Convention Center – soon after the Arlen Specter-Joe Sestak debate.  If you want to send a question for the panel on Twitter before or during the panel, please use the hash-tags #nnlocal or #nn09.  If you cannot attend, a video of our panel will be archived at http://www.netrootsnation.org/video.

Paul Hogarth is a lawyer and community organizer at the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, a non-profit in San Francisco that also publishes Beyond Chron – voted the Bay Area’s “Best Local Website” in 2008. Paul is Beyond Chron’s Managing Editor, where he covers City Hall, affordable housing, and marriage equality. He is a former elected member of the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board, and almost filed to run for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors this year. Paul has appeared on CNN’s “Blogger Bunch” to discuss Prop 8, and is a frequent guest on Bay Area radio shows about local politics.

Local government has a bigger impact on our lives than most of us realize.  As one local candidate for public office once said, “local government can make the difference between an unmitigated disaster – and just a regular disaster.”  The big decisions are made at the federal and state level, but local government is where the rubber hits the road – where we make decisions like allocating stimulus money, or blunt the damage of draconian budget cuts that come from the top.  It’s where zoning laws can make a crucial difference in what gets built in your community.  Local politicians are far more accessible – and a small but vocal group of citizens can show up at City Hall and have enormous power.

Bloggers play a crucial role – not only to mobilize community activists around a common issue, but to spread information about what goes on in local government.  As newspapers cut back on their staff and cover local municipal meetings with less and less frequency, often the only way people can learn about a critical hearing in their neighborhood is through a blog.  And it’s the reason why we started Beyond Chron for San Francisco.

Beyond Chron is unusual for most liberal blogs, in that we are published by a local non-profit organization – the Tenderloin Housing Clinic – that has incorporated it into the type of work that we do.  It allows me to get paid for what I write, which is a huge advantage relative to most blogs that are 100% volunteer operated.

The Tenderloin Housing Clinic – and its Executive Director, Randy Shaw – has played a key role in San Francisco for 29 years.  Founded to give free legal advice to low-income tenants in the City’s most impoverished Downtown neighborhood, we have expanded our mission to provide money management services for clients on government assistance, manage fifteen residential hotels that serve as the main housing referral for the City’s homeless, and community organizing to improve the life of Tenderloin residents.  Randy has written three books – The Activist’s Handbook, Renewing America and the recent Beyond the Fields, which chronicles the legacy of Cesar Chavez.

The San Francisco Chronicle has long been the bane of progressive activists in the City – and we have often made fun of it.  But because it’s the Bay Area only “paper of record,” whatever makes it in the Chronicle dominates news coverage for the next few days – to the detriment of tenant activists.  It became most apparent in the 2003 Mayoral election, when the Chronicle’s coverage of the Newsom-Gonzalez race was akin to how Fox News covered the Bush-Kerry race.  We had to fight back, and in April 2004 started Beyond Chron.  We are now one of the top local San Francisco blogs.

I was in law school when Randy started Beyond Chron, but had worked as a community organizer at the Tenderloin Housing Clinic from 2000 to 2003.  When I graduated from law school in 2006, I joined Beyond Chron as the Managing Editor – where I have been working ever since (despite having passed the California Bar Exam on the first try!)

Most recently, I have done extensive work at Beyond Chron analyzing the San Francisco budget.  In these tough times, every city government is going through painful budget cuts – but in San Francisco we have been hit by California’s budget crisis (Netroots Nation will also have a panel discussion Saturday on the state budget.)  Moreover, non-profits like the Tenderloin Housing Clinic are always a “political football” during budget season between the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors – so we fully expected to see drastic cuts from Gavin Newsom.

Add the fact that we have a dysfunctional city government culture – where the Mayor refuses to engage the Board of Supervisors, Gavin Newsom is running for Governor and is preparing every move with an eye on the statewide electorate – and we have a genuine recipe for disaster.

On June 1st, Newsom released his budget proposal for the 2009-2010 fiscal year – which the Supervisors then have a month to scrutinize and offer amendments.  In typical Newsom fashion, he spent an hour going through details – in a wonkish sounding presentation that sounds very impressive for those unaware of the context.  His budget would have no tax increases, no layoffs of police and firefighters and only $43 million in Health Department cuts (as opposed to the much higher numbers we were afraid of.)  And besides, said Newsom, he cut 28% out of the Mayor’s Office.

It sounded too good to be true, because it was.  Not laying off police or firefighters sells well to Southern California voters – but meanwhile the City has a $500 million deficit.  After his speech in front of a packed press conference, most reporters simply turned to members of the Board of Supervisors and got a quote or two reacting to the Mayor’s speech.  I didn’t see the point, because the Supervisors didn’t know anything more than we did.  So I picked up the Mayor’s budget, and tried something revolutionary – I read it.

Newsom wasn’t cutting $43 million out of Public Health – it was over $100 million.  And the Mayor’s Office was actually getting a 60% increase in funding, although most of that was from federal grant money that the office would dole out.  He was downsizing his staff – but only by 8%, and those positions were just being re-allocated to other City agencies.  In other words, the Mayor lied – and had the nerve to think he could get away with it.  And he almost did, since no one else in the media bothered to read the budget.

I like to tell this story, because it shows how easy it is for bloggers willing to put in the hard work to break a significant story at the local level – because the traditional media has abdicated its responsibility.  Over the next several weeks, I attended numerous Budget Committee hearings at City Hall – and pored over the Budget Analyst’s reports on City departments.  Beyond Chron became one of the “go-to” websites for those wanting to follow the San Francisco budget, and I am proud of the work we put into that effort.

A month later, an unprecedented $43.7 million in crucial programs that serve the City’s poor were saved by the Board of Supervisors – thanks to the hard work of community organizers to fight cuts in health & human services.  But the process was deeply flawed; much of the Mayor’s pet projects remain, and the Fire Department – despite getting a $6 million cut – is still bloated and top-heavy.  And now that we got more bad news from the state budget, San Francisco has to make $18 million in mid-year cuts – with probably more down the line.

It’s why we still need local political blogs … and why the work you do to cover City Hall in your own community is crucial, and can have a decisive impact in peoples’ lives.

Please join us on Friday at 1:30 p.m. in Room 315/316 at the Convention Center – soon after the Arlen Specter-Joe Sestak debate.  If you want to send a question for the panel on Twitter before or during the panel, please use the hash-tags #nnlocal or #nn09.  If you cannot attend, a video of our panel will be archived at http://www.netrootsnation.org/video.

Paul Hogarth is a lawyer and community organizer at the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, a non-profit in San Francisco that also publishes Beyond Chron – voted the Bay Area’s “Best Local Website” in 2008. Paul is Beyond Chron’s Managing Editor, where he covers City Hall, affordable housing, and marriage equality. He is a former elected member of the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board, and almost filed to run for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors this year. Paul has appeared on CNN’s “Blogger Bunch” to discuss Prop 8, and is a frequent guest on Bay Area radio shows about local politics.

From today’s Beyond Chron.

It’s official.  With the new state budget, the City is losing more money from Sacramento this year than what we have gained from Washington.  President Obama’s stimulus means that San Francisco is getting $92 million more from the federal government than last year, but the combined February and June budgets from Sacramento took $98 million away.  And that doesn’t count the $109 million in local tax revenue the state will “borrow” from us to balance their budget.

Virtually all the state cuts affect health and human services, making it even more crucial that the Board of Supervisors protect the $43.7 million in “add-back” money they fought so hard to restore.  Mayor Gavin Newsom will propose $18.4 million in unilateral mid-year cuts in response to the state budget, but the deal struck with Budget Chair John Avalos is that he must give the Board a formal chance to weigh in.  And because Supervisor David Campos’ amendment put part of the City budget on reserve, the Board still controls up to $12 million in Police and $6.5 million in Fire Department funds.  It’s time to use that leverage, and revisit those budgets.

Barack Giveth, But Arnold Taketh Away

According to the Mayor’s initial budget proposal on June 1st, San Francisco will get about $92 million more in federal funds this year – largely from the President’s stimulus package.  But even before the state budget was finalized last week, our funding from Sacramento had already been cut by $62 million.  Now, cumulative state cuts to the City from the February and June budgets are at least $98 million, wiping out the federal stimulus.

To plug a $26 billion deficit, the state budget made a total of $15 billion in cuts, and “borrowed” up to $11 billion from local governments.  The state is required by law to “pay back” localities within three years – with interest.  Rather than a balanced approach at solving the budget crisis by passing some revenue, the state simply cut and borrowed.

Here is how the state budget numbers translate for San Francisco, in a preliminary report released by the City Controller: (a) $36.4 million in cuts – almost entirely affecting health and human services, (b) $18.6 million in Redevelopment funds “borrowed” and (c) a $91 million hit in “borrowed” local property tax revenue.  

According to a recent New York Times editorial, California is not alone.  States are in tough times and have to make fiscal sacrifices, with cuts that canceled out most of what they got from the federal stimulus.  “States cannot avoid raising taxes to help balance their budgets,” warned the Times editorial. “But tax increases on high-income residents are less harmful than spending cuts.”

Nevertheless, Governor Schwarzenegger – and the Republicans in the state legislature – refused to support any tax increase whatsoever. They would not repeal $2 billion in corporate tax loopholes that were placed in the February budget, refused to consider an oil severance tax (putting them to the right of Sarah Palin on that issue) and opposed raising the upper-income tax bracket that GOP Governors Ronald Reagan and Pete Wilson agreed to do when the state hit hard times.  Now, cities are left holding the bag.

According to the City Controller, San Francisco can borrow the $108 million it is losing from the state “borrowing” our redevelopment and property tax revenue – so that figure should not translate into immediate budget cuts.  But we still must deal with the $36.4 million in direct state budget cuts.  

The City budget that Mayor Newsom and the Supervisors passed set aside an $18 million “safety cushion” to deal with future state cuts, and this money will now be used to back-fill the impact.  But it means we must find another $18.4 million in cuts (or revenue alternatives) for San Francisco.

State Cuts Leave San Francisco With a Choice

Practically all of the state cuts are in health and human services.  Out of the $36.4 million in direct cuts to San Francisco, $20 million went to the Department of Public Health and $16 million to the Human Services Agency.  Only the Sheriff’s Department (and no other City agency) also got hit by the state budget – with $500,000 from an extra day of monthly furloughs.  Cuts in the state prison system will also mean the Sheriff has to absorb more inmates at the County Jail – but we don’t know yet how much more that will cost.

These cuts are hitting departments that have already been ravaged.  When Mayor Gavin Newsom submitted his City budget proposal in June, it was the first time in recent history that more local General Fund dollars would go to Police than to Public Health, and more to the Fire Department than Human Services.  He cut $24 million out of Human Services, and $97 million from Public Health.  (NOTE: While Newsom announced on June 1st that public health would only get a $43 million cut, Beyond Chron quickly disproved that claim.)

The Board of Supervisors did what they could to stop the bleeding.  During the “add-back” process, the Budget & Finance Committee managed to save $43.7 million in programs – work that now hangs in jeopardy, as the Mayor makes mid-year cuts to find $18.4 million.  All the DPH-funded programs that the Board restored only totaled $12.5 million – or less than what the state is now cutting in public health funds.  Human Services “add-backs” totaled $4.1 million – or a quarter of what the state is now slashing from that department.

When you break it down further, it gets scary.  The Budget Committee saved about one million dollars in cuts to AIDS housing, prevention and treatment.  Now, the state cut $4.6 million of the AIDS money we were counting on.  Eight million dollars in mental health and substance abuse funds were restored during the “add-back” process, but the state just cut $3 million.  The Board worked to preserve $1.28 million to keep homeless shelters open and provide other direct homeless services, but the state has now cut $2.8 million in TANF shelter funds.

Health and human services already suffered cuts at the local level.  Now with the state budget, we need to make cuts elsewhere.

Holding the Mayor Accountable

The “official” budget season is now over, and the Board of Supervisors don’t have much power to make appropriations like they did in June and July.  The Mayor can make unilateral mid-year cuts because projected revenues from the state are not there, and in the past he has not treated the Board like equal partners.  A Charter Amendment to remedy this inequity failed to get put on the November ballot, so for now this is the system the Supervisors are stuck with.

Budget Chair John Avalos, however, got Newsom to agree to a certain level of accountability – codified in the budget ordinance.  After the Controller completes his analysis of state budget cuts (this week’s report was only preliminary; expect a final report by September 14), the Mayor has 21 days to submit a plan for mid-year cuts to the Supervisors – in other words, submit a supplemental de-appropriation.  The cuts cannot take effect until 45 days later, giving the Supervisors time to review the plan and hold hearings.  In other words, no mid-year cuts can go into effect until two months after the Controller’s Report.

The Supervisors can approve the Mayor’s mid-year cut proposal, amend it or “do nothing.”  It’s not an ideal situation (after all, amending it would require a super-majority), but it will be a marked improvement over the last mid-year cuts.  Back then, Newsom never even submitted a proposal to the Board for formal approval.  And only because the Supervisors proposed their own mid-year cuts did we even have formal hearings.  This process will give activists breathing room to push for different budget solutions, and it’s time to come up with creative solutions now.

Police and Fire Departments Must “Share the Pain”

When the Supervisors negotiated the City budget in June, they secured some reductions in the Police and Fire Departments from what Mayor Newsom had initially proposed.  But compared with what other agencies have sustained, we still don’t have a real “share the pain” budget.

Five million dollars off the Police budget still gave them $9 million more than what they got last year, and a $6 million cut from the Fire Department still gives the bloated agency a two million dollar raise.  In contrast, Human Services took a $20 million hit in the budget and Public Health got even more – despite a historic level of “add-back” money that the Board managed to scrounge up.

Normally, demanding that these agencies “share the pain” can only be done during budget season — when the Supervisors still have some clout.  But this year, they can still make such demand — thanks to a last-minute maneuver at the July 21st Board meeting.

Before passing the budget, the Board voted to put $45 million of the City budget “on reserve.”  Sponsored by David Campos, the amendment (which is in the final document that the Mayor signed) requires Newsom to come back to the Supervisors before spending that money – which now gives them leverage if he makes cuts to health and human services.  Twelve million of the money in question is in the Police budget, and $6.5 million is in the Fire Department.  In other words, up to 18.5 million dollars in cuts could be made to the Police and Fire Departments because of this reserve.

During the budget season, Beyond Chron analyzed the Fire Department budget – and identified over eight million dollars the City could cut that sensibly targeted the top brass, without re-opening negotiations their union contracts.  Another six million dollars could be found if the union – like all other public employee unions – agree to a “give-back,” for a total of $15 million.  But the Supervisors only cut $6 million.  The Board  still controls another $6.5 million of their budget in “reserves,” and now is the time to ask for a few concessions.

The Police Department could also be cut, as the Supervisors still have $12 million of their budget on reserve.  But it will be trickier, because there are not as many superfluous “top brass” positions like in the Fire Department.  The Police budget has exploded in recent years due to a generous union contract Newsom negotiated in 2007, and most of the increased costs come from retirement.  We would need cops (and firefighters) to increase their contributions to their retirement fund, which could help generate savings for the City.  After all, they explicitly promised to do so when the voters gave them 90% pensions.

Less than 48 hours after “King of Mean” Garry South was left calling the shots in the Gavin Newsom campaign for Governor, the SF Chronicle had a front-page piece attacking Jerry Brown.  Apparently, Brown fundraising for his favorite charities carries all sorts of “conflict-of-interest” allegations that voters should be mindful about in next year’s election.  But this wasn’t the first time reporter Carla Marinucci went on the attack to help Garry South’s clients.  In the last gubernatorial race, Marinucci used her perch at the Chronicle to repeatedly go after rival Phil Angelides – who was locked in a nasty primary fight against South client Steve Westly.  On March 16, 2006, Marinucci wrote a story on Angelides that strangely resembled yesterday’s piece on Brown – attacking the state Treasurer for raising corporate donations to a non-profit.  South burned bridges in that race with his scorched-earth campaign against Angelides (and bad-mouthing the nominee after the primary was over), and it seems like he’s back to his old tricks.  But feeding stories to the Chronicle sounds like part of his modus operandi.

The 2006 Democratic primary fight between Steve Westly and Phil Angelides can best be described as a “murder-suicide pact” that accomplished nothing except re-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger.  But while Angelides spent his time criticizing Westly’s positions (he attacked him for being “too close” to the Governor), Westly ran a smear campaign on Angelides that involved his connection with developers, a Lake Tahoe dredging project and a history of corporate fundraising.  It was classic Garry South tactics: throw a ton of money behind attack ads that tear down your rival, leaving everyone bloodied in the end.

And right there to rev up the engines under the guise of media “objectivity” was Carla Marinucci.  Her front-page Chronicle story on May 31, 2006 – one week before the election – focused on Angelides’ ties with real estate developer Angelo Tsakopoulos, repeating the Westly campaign’s discredited charge about connections with illegal dumping in Lake Tahoe.  Marinucci wrote numerous op-eds masquerading as “news analysis” during the race that made Angelides look bad, such as her May 1st piece that said he faced an “uphill climb” at winning the nomination, right after getting the Democratic Party’s endorsement.

Garry South didn’t stop his attacks on Angelides after his candidate lost the primary, and neither did the Chronicle’s Marinucci.  Barely two days after the nomination fight was over, she had another front-page “news analysis” that said Angelides would have to sell his platform to a “reluctant electorate.”  It was in that article where she quoted South as saying: “it would be hard to single out [Angelides’] biggest liability because he’s a walking Achilles heel … Arnold and his Karl Rove-trained wrecking crew will tear the guy apart, atom by atom.”  That piece set the tone for the rest of the campaign season, and Angelides went on to lose badly to Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Yesterday’s attack on Jerry Brown was odd, because it’s not unusual for high-profile career politicians like Brown to fundraise for various charities – with donations coming from corporations.  Gavin Newsom does the same – such as the party he threw in Denver at the Democratic National Convention, which was sponsored by AT&T and PG&E.  But the implication of Marinucci’s article was clear – corporations will influence Jerry Brown by giving money to his favorite charities (where there are no donation limits), rather than contributing directly to his campaign.

But what makes this interesting is that Marinucci made almost the same accusation about Phil Angelides, back in 2006.  In a story published on March 16 as he faced Garry South’s candidate, Marinucci dredged up an 17-year-old story about Angelides raising wads of cash from corporate donors to the California Legislative Forum.  Just like her latest attack on Brown, Marinucci alleged the state Treasurer had found an end-run around campaign contribution limits to help rich donors influence elected officials.

At the time, my colleague Randy Shaw panned the story as a “classic example” of political propaganda.  “Arnold [Schwarzenegger] has raised millions from special interests while serving as California’s Governor,” he wrote.  “Angelides did his fundraising as a private citizen … There’s quite a difference between a Governor raising money from the special interests whose operations he oversees, and a private fundraiser who has no authority or influence over potential donors.”

Garry South ran Steve Westly’s campaign against Phil Angelides, and with Eric Jaye’s exit is now the chief strategist in Gavin Newsom’s campaign against Jerry Brown.  One can expect a seasoned campaign operative to push a partisan story against an opponent, although few do it as brazenly as South.  If the stories against Angelides and Brown had come directly from South, everyone would know the messenger had his own agenda.

But when the top political reporter of a major newspaper takes such attacks and puts them on the front page as “news,” it creates a serious problem with the public trust.  Marinucci appears to have recycled the same line of attack against Brown she used for Angelides, which calls into question whether Garry South is feeding her these stories.  It also sheds light on the Newsom campaign’s new strategy, and the direction South is taking it.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

Last Friday at 5:00 p.m. (which he’s apt to do when releasing bad news), San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom vetoed three pro-tenant ordinances designed to help renters facing hard times.  He even nixed a relatively mild proposal to limit “banked” rent increases to 8% – despite this being consistent with existing policies at the Mayor’s Office of Housing.  Newsom’s record on tenant issues in San Francisco has always been bad, and his latest act does not bode well for next year’s statewide elections.  California’s 14 million renters need a champion in the Governor’s Mansion after six years of a hostile Republican Administration, but Newsom currently only has one opponent for the Democratic primary – California Attorney General Jerry Brown.  Based on his record as Mayor of Oakland, Brown can be counted on to be just as anti-tenant – if not worse – than Newsom.  There is no excuse why a deep blue state like California can’t have a pro-tenant Governor, and the current field of Democratic candidates creates an opening for a new person to jump into the fray.

Sacramento Politics Out of Step With Renters

When Schwarzenegger became Governor in 2003, the tenants’ rights agenda in the State Captiol – which had made some progress in the Gray Davis years – came to a grinding halt.  Arnold owns rental property in Santa Monica, and made it clear from the very start that he views California law as too “pro-tenant.”  Besides the legislative victory of 60-day notices for “no-fault” evictions, renters have made virtually no progress in Sacramento ever since.

And it has been a nightmare.  The Governor has vetoed legislation to help tenants in foreclosed properties, and single-handedly killed the renters’ tax credit.  We can’t get the state legislature to pass desperately needed Ellis Act reform, because too many Democrats are afraid of angering realtors in their districts – if they know Schwarzenegger would not sign the bill into law anyway.  We are at a standstill.

For a state whose voters soundly defeated Proposition 98 last year, there is no excuse why we can’t have a pro-tenant Governor.  A wide coalition opposed Prop 98 (it was so extreme that even Pete Wilson and the Chamber of Commerce opposed it), but polling throughout the campaign repeatedly showed a majority of Californians support rent control – suggesting we should be making more progress.

Unfortunately, neither of the two Democratic candidates for Governor are pro-tenant.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom

San Francisco tenant activists know that throughout his career, Gavin Newsom has not been an ally.  Newsom was a landlord when he served on the Board of Supervisors, and the City’s conflict-of-interest rules prevented him from taking a stand on many pro-tenant ballot measures.  But his consultant, Eric Jaye, made his mark in June 1998 by running the unsuccessful campaign to pass Prop E – which would have repealed rent control and eviction protections for owner-occupied buildings with four units or less.

In 2001, Newsom was one of three Supervisors to vote “no” on Jake McGoldrick’s T.I.C. legislation – which was designed to curb Ellis Act evictions.  In 2002, he signed the main ballot argument for Prop R – the measure that would have resulted in mass condominium conversions.  The SF Tenants Union prioritized its defeat, and Prop R lost by 20 points.

As Mayor, Newsom has vetoed most pro-tenant measures.  In 2004, he vetoed the Housing Preservation Ordinance – which stopped the mass demolition of rent-controlled properties.  In 2006, he vetoed two measures designed to curb Ellis Act evictions: (a) one that would have allowed the Planning Commission to weigh in on such cases, and (b) one requiring real estate brokers to disclose a prior Ellis Act eviction to potential T.I.C. buyers at open houses.  The voters passed the latter ordinance in the next election, a “veto override” that remains law today.

But Newsom has been willing to do the right thing – if it serves his political purposes.  In 2006, he signed into law a measure that effectively halted condo conversions on buildings with a prior Ellis eviction.  He also let an ordinance preventing landlords from arbitrarily taking away services become law.   Newsom did this because: (a) tenant activists effectively publicized an eviction epidemic and (b) Supervisor Bevan Dufty – who had been the fourth vote to sustain the Mayor’s vetoes – was up for re-election, and he hoped to deter a serious challenger.

What does this prove?  Newsom may not be “pro-tenant” – but if renters organize to shift the political dynamics, they can occasionally push him to respond.  A Governor Newsom would probably not advance legislation to curtail the Ellis Act or strengthen rent control, but by working with friendly Democratic legislators tenants could score the rare victory.

It’s instructive to see what occurred in San Francisco after tenant issues died down in prominence.  Besides vetoing the “renters’ relief” package, Newsom is pushing a very dangerous idea to fast-track thousands of condo conversion applications.  Billed as a way to “raise revenue” for the City’s coffers, the measure would encourage more Ellis Act evictions down the road – and cannibalize our rental housing stock.  Newsom even ditched recent City budget talks to meet at Medjool’s with the pro-gentrification group Plan C to discuss this proposal.

Newsom opposed Proposition 98.  At the time, he said it would “effectively gut local land use planning and severely weaken environmental protections,” and a “disaster for cities and counties.”  But now, his gubernatorial campaign has taken $25,000 from Thomas Coates – a real estate investor who gave one million dollars to the Prop 98 effort.  Expect landlords and realtors to heavily fund Newsom’s gubernatorial campaign.

California Attorney General – and former Oakland Mayor – Jerry Brown:

Progressives who remember when Jerry Brown was Governor – from 1974 to 1982 – are inclined to believe he would be pro-tenant, and thus better than Gavin Newsom.  And it’s true that in 1976, he vetoed AB 3788 – which would have pre-empted rent control in California.  (Other states were not so lucky, where the legislatures have forbidden cities from doing so.)  But Brown waited until the very last minute to veto the legislation, and it was a very tough call what he’d do – he opposed blanket preemption of local governments, but was against rent control.

Brown is notorious for being quirky and unpredictable, and his politics have drastically changed over a very long career.  Therefore, it’s not very helpful to look at his career as Governor in the 1970’s and 80’s.  A more accurate prediction is to see where he’s been since 1998 – when he made a political comeback by getting elected Mayor of Oakland.

If Gavin Newsom has been a bad Mayor for tenants, Jerry Brown was a real nightmare.  Oakland had rent control, but no “just cause” protections – which meant a landlord could simply ask a tenant to leave in thirty days for no reason at all.  In the late 1990’s, as the dot-com boom gentrified Oakland (and Brown promoted massive downtown real estate development), tenants pushed for a “just cause” ordinance.  When the measure qualified for the 2002 ballot, Brown vehemently opposed it – but the voters passed it, after a tough campaign.  In 2004, Brown campaigned against pro-tenant Councilwoman Nancy Nadel.

During the mass real estate boom of the Brown years, Oakland had no inclusionary housing ordinance – which meant that private developers were not required to build any “below-market rate” units.  Brown resisted any efforts to impose modest requirements, and his final act as Mayor in 2006 was to veto an inclusionary ordinance.  In contrast, San Francisco passed an inclusionary ordinance in 2001 – which over the years has been strengthened to have higher affordability levels.  Supervisor Gavin Newsom voted for it.

As Oakland Mayor, Brown was an unapologetic cheerleader of condo conversions – even if it displaced tenants.  In November 2006, City Councilman Ignacio De La Fuente – who had been Brown’s endorsed candidate for Mayor to replace him that year – proposed such legislation, and attempted to pass it in a hurry while Brown was still in office.  This effort, however was thwarted by Mayor-elect Ron Dellums.  Brown’s position is disturbing, given that real estate speculators are taking the fight to Sacramento.  Would a Governor Brown sign state legislation that preempts cities from passing restrictions on condominium conversions?

As far as I can tell, Jerry Brown never took a stand on last year’s Proposition 98 to ban rent control – even though practically everyone else opposed it.  It cannot be because Brown was California Attorney General – since that didn’t stop him from opposing other propositions.  But Brown used his position as Attorney General to write the measure’s official ballot title, and opted not to mention that Prop 98 would abolish rent control in California.  A couple tenant groups sued him for an abuse of discretion, but a judge refused to require Brown to re-write it.

Can a “Pro-Tenant” Democrat Win the Governor’s Race?

Gray Davis was not exactly a “pro-tenant” Democrat, but as Governor he signed bills that the state legislature passed – such as (a) one-year Ellis eviction notices for seniors and the disabled, (b) strict habitability standards, (c) restrictions on re-renting property that had been Ellised, (d) exempting residential hotels (SRO’s) from the Ellis Act, and (e) 60-day notices for “no-fault” evictions.  The latter law expired in 2005, and it took two attempts by tenant advocates in the Schwarzenegger years to successfully have it re-instated as permanent.

It is questionable if Governors Gavin Newsom or Jerry Brown would sign such bills into law.  As for Brown, there is an added danger that he could even enact laws that would be a step backwards for tenants.  But there are “pro-tenant” Democrats in California who could get elected Governor – if they bothered to run.  Antonio Villaraigosa bowed out of the race, which is unfortunate – given his track record as Los Angeles Mayor at enacting some good legislation.  Time is running out on politicians to enter the Governor’s race.  Will anyone else jump in??

EDITOR’S NOTE: Paul Hogarth was an elected Commissioner on the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board from 2000 to 2004, and has been a tenant activist for years.  He is now a tenants’ rights attorney living in San Francisco, and is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, where this piece was first published.

Yesterday’s front-page story in the SF Chronicle on the California budget crisis was shocking, dishonest and disgraceful.  The piece described Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as a “steely-eyed, sword-wielding strongman” – who will “hold his ground” against Democrats in the state legislature.  Never mind the Terminator has driven the state to bankruptcy – after six years of tax cuts for the rich, fiscal gymnastics and borrowing schemes.  Never mind that Schwarzenegger lied about a voter mandate in the May 19th election – and says he won’t support a “single tax increase whatsoever.”  Never mind that by vetoing last week’s budget stop-gap measure, Arnold forfeited $2 billion that the state can no longer use – and our government now has to pay with I.O.U.’s.  Never mind the Governor told the New York Times that despite the state’s disastrous plight, he will sit down in his Jacuzzi and “lay back with a stogie.”  The Bay Area’s paper of record would rather portray him as a “tough guy.”

Carla Marinucci is the Chronicle’s worst reporter, a point Beyond Chron has written about time and time again.  With all the talented printed journalists who are unemployed or underemployed, Marinucci stays on as their top political writer – with yesterday’s ode to Schwarzenegger being her most recent incarnation (although Matthew Yi co-authored to the piece.)  And it’s hard to see how much lower the Chronicle, which is on the brink of going out of business, can go in its coverage of a serious political issue.

Consider Marinucci’s first paragraph: “Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has played an astonishing range of roles in California’s budget dramas – bipartisan peacemaker and people’s advocate among them. Now, the governor is reprising a classic familiar to millions: the steely-eyed, sword-wielding strongman.”  Bipartisan peacemaker?  The only thing Arnold ever succeeded in getting Democrats and Republicans in Sacramento to agree on is that they both dislike him – prompting many commentators to label him a “party of one.”  As for a “people’s advocate,” Schwarzenegger twice called a special election to have the voters decide – and in both instances, he was soundly rejected.

And while old movie posters from Conan the Barbarian, Terminator and Total Recall could make him out to be a “steely-eyed, sword-wielding strongman,” it’s hard to see the Governor’s current posture as nothing but the pathetic bluster of a deranged bully.

Here are the facts: declining revenues due to a severe recession have bankrupted California – leaving us with a $26.3 billion deficit.  The state can lay off every employee tomorrow, and it still wouldn’t balance the budget.  On May 19th, the voters rejected a complicated set of ballot measures that Arnold championed – after opponents on the left and the right campaigned against them.  There has been very little analysis about what “the people” were saying, except a poll that found only 36% of voters (and 24% of Californians) want a cuts-only budget.

Nevertheless, Schwarzenegger has made common cause with right-wing extremists at the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Association – and Republican in the state legislature.  He says the voters on May 19th wanted the state to pass an “all-cuts” budget, and that he won’t support “any tax increase whatsoever.”  Arnold has proposed a budget that will shred our social safety net, and up-end the California Constitution by raiding school funding.  He wants to open up the ocean for drilling to get revenue, but opposes a tax on oil companies that would make that profitable – even though Sarah Palin’s Alaska has one at 25% of profits.

As June 30th approached, Democrats in the state legislature proposed using $2 billion in reserves to start plugging the hole – money that must be used before the end of the 2008-2009 fiscal year, or else it’s gone.  They couldn’t pass a comprehensive solution because of the two-thirds rule, but this – along with a few budget savings and closing tax loopholes – would have prevented the state from issuing I.O.U.’s.  How did Arnold respond?  Repeatedly veto the package, and insist we must resolve the “whole problem” all at once.  As the midnight deadline loomed, Schwarzenegger offered no solution besides the veto pen.

Apparently, the Governor is emboldened by his rising poll numbers – from a pitiful 30% to a dismal 43% – which may be attributed to a more aggressive posture with the state legislature.  But no one stops to ask if those 13% are right-wingers who want to shrink the size of government and drown it in a bathtub.  I suspect the legislature’s Republican minority is getting along better with Arnold these days, now that he’s backed off on all tax increases.  For a while, he was persona non grata in the Grover Norquist Fan Club known as the GOP caucus.

But you wouldn’t know any of this by reading yesterday’s Chronicle – although the piece briefly mentioned the state’s bond rating has collapsed, and banks are refusing to cash the state IOU’s.  The article quoted Schwarzenegger’s communications director, who said the Governor has “the luxury” of being near the end of his term – and not having to face the voters again.  Marinucci could have mentioned (but didn’t) that Arnold’s legacy – from slashing the vehicle license fee to solving each budget crisis by borrowing more money – will be driving the state to bankruptcy.  If Gray Davis was still Governor, we might not have a deficit.

In last Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, Schwarzenegger said he was not letting California’s fiscal crisis get to him personally.  “I will sit down in my Jacuzzi tonight,” he told reporter Mark Leibovich. “I’m going to lay back with a stogie.”  There are so many analogies that come to mind with the Governor’s quote.  You could say it’s just like “Nero fiddled while Rome burned,” or another “let them eat cake” moment.  A more recent comparison would be George W. Bush, who said he was getting plenty of sleep at night during the Iraq War.

As an R.E.M. fan, however, Arnold’s callous attitude reminds me of the following:

It’s the End of the World As We Know It,

It’s the End of the World As We Know it,

It’s the End of the World As We Know It

And I Feel Fine …

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.