SF Progressive

Peskin saves D3 athletic facility

by Savannah Blackwell

Supervisor Aaron Peskin and hundreds of his District Three constituents marked a victory on March 30 when nine of his colleagues joined him in voting down plans to demolish an athletic facility and replace it with 120 condominiums.

Many of the residents objected to the loss of the Golden Gateway Tennis & Swim Club, located at 8th and Washington -- off the Embarcadero. Others worried the new 8-story building would ruin their views of the waterfront. But the issue that killed the current project was a technical one.

Land Use Attorney Sue Hestor, who represented the residents opposed to the plan, figured out that though the development covered 40 feet of land over which the Redevelopment Agency has some jurisdiction, planners had failed to consult the agency prior to approving the project.

``I'm perplexed that in the name of good planning in a very dense and complex city...redevelopment hasn't had an opportunity to look at this, and planning doesn't seem to want them to look at it," Sue Ann MacNeil, a resident living near the proposal, said at the supes' hearing on the matter.

The board's 10 to one vote (with Supervisor Tony Hall opposed) to
overturn the Planning Commission's decision to allow the project to
proceed without an environmental review will kill the project for the
time being.

``They'll have to go back to the drawing board," Supervisor Jake
McGoldrick told the SFProgressive.

MacNeil, who is also a political consultant who has worked on the
campaigns of Public Defender Jeff Adachi, former District Attorney
Terence Hallinan and Supervisor Tom Ammiano, said the board's decision makes a strong argument for why District Three voters should support Peskin's re-election efforts in November.

"He is so adept with these land use issues," she said. "We've got to keep him."

Fagan out

In what has to be one of the most diplomatically understated press releases issued in recent times, the Mayor's office announced that former Police Chief Alex Fagan has been removed from his current position "due to personal and family matters and in the best interest of the city, Office of Emergency Services director and former police chief Alex Fagan will retire in the near future. Until then he has been placed on administrative leave."

Read: Pushed out - as far from City Hall and Mayor Gavin Newsom as possible. - Savannah Blackwell

For background, see Jeffrey Toobin's Fajita Justice New Yorker story.

Also, the police report on the fight in Scottsdale.

Anti-demolition legislation fails

The Board of Supervisors failed to overturn Newsom's veto of Supervisor Chris Daly's anti-demolition legislation during Tuesday's meeting by one vote.

Daly was angry and disappointed he was unable pick up an eigth vote, "This Board had an opportunity to do something big today and it took a pass." Daly said he would consider a plan to put the legislation on the November ballot. - Savannah Blackwell

Whither a Real Solution?

Prop. J's defeat doesn't necessarily mean we're any closer to a progressive solution to the city's housing crisis

By Savannah Blackwell

About 10 p.m. on the night of the March election, Boris Delepine and
Richard Marquez headed into the Progressive Nerve Center on Mission Street exhausted, but ecstatic.

And rightly so. They were a key part of the 100-person volunteer effort that dropped some 100,000 pieces of literature blasting Proposition J, the so-called "workforce housing" measure backed by the Chamber of Commerce and Mayor Gavin Newsom (though he would rather we not remember that).

The results of that effort were astounding. Seventy percent of San
Francisco voters gave the proposal the thumbs down. As Warren Hinckle wrote in the March 9 issue of the San Francisco Examiner, that kind of finish in a race when both sides are spending plenty of money "is unheard of."

Part of the measure's resounding defeat was due to the energy and
enthusiasm of good soldiers like Delepine and Marquez, part of the troops who supported Supervisor Matt Gonzalez's bid for mayor last fall. Gonzalez supporters kept their momentum going and organized around a piece of legislation that despite its name would mostly produce condos for sale at prices the common San Franciscan could never afford.

"There was that great vibe from the mayoral campaign. All of that came together against J," Ross Mirkarimi, the Green party activist who handled the press for Gonzalez's bid, told the SF Progressive. "There was a cadre of activists who wanted more because that campaign was so intoxicating."

He's right, and lefties should get credit for getting out the word
that this measure would not -- despite the Chamber's more than half
million dollar campaign -- make it easier for nurses and schoolteachers to buy homes. But lest progressives consider the proposition's defeat a sign that a huge number of voters have joined the cause, beware: what really wiped out this initiative was the fact that moderate-minded San Franciscans were convinced the plan would mess with their neighborhoods.

"This was a cry for comprehensive neighborhood planning," longtime
housing activist Calvin Welch, who played a major role in the Anti-J
campaign, told the SF Progressive. "You cannot just take the southeast part of town and turn it over to market-rate housing and let them build without parks and transit."

Though the measure spoke mainly to the central waterfront, it
would make this kind of housing a permitted use in other parts of
the city as well. Proposition J failed in every supervisor's district,
according to the data crunchers in the office of David Binder Research.

Though outspent, the no on J forces put out mail that went straight to San Franciscans' emotionalism over preserving the character of their neighborhoods. One mailer, put out by the Progressive Voter Project and San Francisco Tenants Union, featured a high rise next to a Victorian and warned, "Meet Your New Neighbors."

"This thing scared the shit out of the west side," Supervisor Chris
Daly, an opponent of J, told the SF Progressive. "They were thinking, `If this is allowed to happen on the east side, what's coming in my neighborhood?' That's why the absentees [voters who cast absentee ballots] went 60 percent against."

The same coalition of moderate-minded, neighborhood-focused voters and progressives that proved so successful in dumping former Mayor Willie Brown's slate of supervisors in 2000 came together to defeat Prop. J. That's a marvelous, powerful victory.

But unfortunately, it does not necessarily mean we are any closer to
finding a city-wide progressive solution to the housing crisis. (Indeed, many of the same west-side residents who voted against J are also opposed to the San Francisco Planning Department's proposal to increase housing density along major transit corridors throughout the city). A city-wide, comprehensive solution is what voters seem to want. According to Binder's analysis, San Franciscans are looking for a proposal that will address the housing needs of the homeless, low-income workers and the middle class all at once.

That's no small feat, and much of the responsibility to figure out a
plan should lie with Newsom, who, during the 2003 mayoral campaign, relied heavily on the chamber's housing proposal as his solution to the crisis. Having gotten a hold of polling that showed the measure was doomed, he distanced himself from Prop. J starting in January.

Since it's March 2 defeat, he's said he wants to bring together a wide range of activists and experts to deal with the problem. That's a good idea, as Binder tells us part of the reason J went down so hard is that most of the big players in the city's age-old land use battles were shut out of the discussions that led to the measure's formulation. That included neighborhood leaders as well as heavyweights like Welch, Joe O'Donoghue (who was largely responsible for raising the nearly $200,000 that went into the opposition's efforts) and consultant Jack Davis.

"You gotta get all these players together, otherwise, forget it,"
Binder told us.

In the meantime, various supervisors are busy working different
proposals. Supervisor Aaron Peskin is pushing to ease housing construction downtown as well as legalize in-law units. Daly is trying to get together enough votes to overturn Newsom's veto of legislation preventing the demolition of existing affordable housing and will put the measure on the fall ballot if he doesn't. And Supervisor Jake McGoldrick is working closely with Welch to let developers build higher and more densely, in exchange for affordable housing subsidies and other
public benefits.

One of the leaders Newsom has said he wants to see at the table is
Gonzalez. And we've just learned he's decided not to seek another term on the board. How his departure will affect efforts to solve the
housing crisis for real working people is unclear. Hopefully, he will see fit to remain in the mix and keep lending his talents to the fight. Because this battle, folks, is far from over.

Former Bay Guardian City Hall reporter Savannah Blackwell recently joined the SF Progressive as our City Editor. Earlier, she wrote Newsom's New Moves?

Send email by 5 pm Tuesday in support of IRV in SF

From: Steven Hill, Center for Voting and Democracy

Dear IRV supporters and activists,

The effort to implement instant runoff voting in San Francisco has
reached a very important moment, and we need your help. On Tuesday, March 30, at 1 pm in Sacramento, the Voting Systems Panel of the Secretary of State's office will decide whether to certify the optical scan voting equipment that has been modified by the vendor Election Systems and Software to be used for IRV elections in San Francisco, beginning November 2004.

We have been waiting for this moment for nearly two years. And we need your letters and presence in Sacramento one more time, even if you do not live in San Francisco. Here are the details.

Two weeks ago the federal and state testing was completed for San
Francisco's IRV equipment, which is optical scan equipment with a fully
voter verified paper trail. According to reports from several people
who
were there, the tests went very well. At these sorts of tests, they
actually run ballots through the equipment with different election
scenarios, including ones designed to trip up the equipment, and then
see if the equipment counts the ballots accurately. In all scenarios,
the voting equipment performed with flying colors. Secretary of State
Kevin Shelley seems to be extremely supportive and pushing his staff to
get this done.

The Secretary of State is inviting written comments that must be
received by no later than 5 p.m. on March 23 (THIS Tuesday). It's
important that we generate at least a half-dozen letters or more in
support of certifying the equipment. You can submit statements to
Michael Wagaman at mwagaman@ss.ca.gov and Dawn Mehlhaf at
dmehlhaf@ss.ca.gov. Or, you can fax your letters to (916) 653-3214 AND
(415) 557-0251 (also email me a copy at shill@fairvote.org). See a
sample letter and talking points below.

Also, if anyone can attend the Voting Systems Panel meeting, that also
will be important. We may have several cars carpooling from the Bay
Area, but space is limited. If you are interested and willing to make
any positive statement at the microphone, please let me know and we can
see if there is room for you. Here are the details on the meeting:

When: March 30, 2004 1:00pm
Where: 1500 11 th Street, 1st Floor - Auditorium, Sacramento, CA 95814

Thanks,

Steven Hill

TALKING POINTS. Please use any or all of these points to write your own
letters (EVEN IF YOU DON't LIVE in San Francisco). Or, if you wish,
use
some version of the sample letter down below. But remember, you MUST
get your letter in by 5 p.m. this Tuesday. Address your letters to
Secretary of State Kevin Shelley AND to the Voting Systems Panel.

1. San Francisco voters passed Proposition A in March 2002 by a vote of
55% to 45% which enacted instant runoff voting to be used for electing
all local offices. It is the will of San Francisco voters to use IRV.
It
has been two years since Proposition A was passed, and it is time to
allow San Francisco voters to use this innovative method.

2. The equipment works. Two weeks ago the federal and state testing
was
completed for San Francisco's IRV equipment, which is optical scan
equipment with a fully voter verified paper trail. The tests went very
well. In all scenarios, the voting equipment counted ballots
accurately.

3. The application by vendor Election Systems and Software is a
modification to a previously certified system. The modifications were
slight -- adding more memory and writing software for the POST-election
process of counting the ballots. The Secretary of State should certify
this modification to a previously certified system.

4. The city of Berkeley recently passed an IRV charter amendment with
the support of 72% of Berkeley voters. It is important that the State
of California accommodate charter cities and voters that wish to use
electoral methods like instant runoff voting which has the potential to
improve democracy at the same time that it saves taxpayers millions of
dollars currently wasted on runoff elections.

5. The equipment should be approved "without conditions." This is a
modification to a previously certified system. The modifications were
slight, and the federal and state tests shows that the system
accurately
counts IRV ballots. Thus, this modification to a previously certified
system also should be certified and without any conditions or
limitations. Other charter cities and counties, if they so choose,
should be able to use this equipment to run an IRV election.(IMPORTANT
POINT!)

6. Great praise and thanks to Secretary of State Kevin Shelley and his
staff for moving forward quickly the last three months on the
certification process for San Francisco's IRV equipment. Also much
thanks to Secretary Shelley for showing great leadership and
proactively
pushing counties, vendors, and everyone concerned to tighten up their
security and administration procedures, and pushing to correct the
procedures of his predecessor which permitted bending of the rules,
including insertion of uncertified, i.e. ILLEGAL software and hardware
into equipment in various counties like Alameda County.

Contact your legislator in support of clean elections

===================================================
ACTION ALERT from the California Clean Money Campaign
"The one reform that makes all other reforms possible"
www.CAclean.org
===================================================

Clean Money legislation has just been introduced, a major development in pushing Clean Money forward. Now is the time we need your action!

CALL YOUR CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLYMEMBER AND ASK HIM OR HER TO ACTIVELY SUPPORT A.B. 2949, THE CLEAN MONEY AND CLEAN ELECTIONS ACT OF 2004.

Tell them you want them to do everything they can to institute a Clean Money system for California statewide and legislative races and break the connection between money and politics in California.

Assemblywoman Loni Hancock (D-East Bay) introduced the Clean Money bill with Assemblymember Darryl Steinberg (D-Sac). State Senator Cedillo and Assemblymembers Chan, Goldberg, Jackson, Laird, Leno, and Lowenthal are all co-authors.

If the author or one of the co-authors is your Assemblymember or State
Senator, be sure to call and thank them!

If your Assemblymember is on the Elections Committee, be sure to call
them and tell them to support the bill! Please ask friends who live in
their districts to call.

ELECTIONS COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

John Longville (D-Rialto), (916) 319-2062
Steven Samuelian (R-Clovis), (916) 319-2029
Jerome Horton (D-Inglewood), (916) 319-2051
Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys), (916) 319-2040
Tony Strickland (R-Camarillo), (916) 319-2037

If your Assemblymember is somebody else, then call them and ask them
to
support and co-author the bill.

Don1t know who your Assemblymember is or how to reach them? Just enter
your zip code here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html

If you have a chance to speak to a legislator or their staff, please
use
the talking points below to explain the benefits to them.

---

MARCH 23: ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS COMMITTEE WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON
AB
2949 IN SACRAMENTO. If you can, join us at the hearing at 1:30pm in
Room
121 of the State Capital building to show your support for the bill.
There will also be a press conference in the Governor's Press Room
(room
1190) at 11:30am. Please email info@CAclean.org if you plan to come to
either.

The text of A.B. 2949 can be found at:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html

---

TALKING POINTS WITH LEGISLATORS -- BENEFITS TO CANDIDATES AND PUBLIC

- Incumbents in Arizona and Maine who ran as Clean Money candidates
found
that public financing allowed them to stop "dialing for dollars" and
fund-raising 24/7. In 2002, the majority of both Democratic and
Republican candidates in Maine and Arizona ran Clean Money campaigns.

- Clean Money helps candidates focus their energy and attention on the
people in their district

- Clean Money helps candidates get out and talk with voters about
public
policy, rather than having to concentrate on donors

- Once elected, Clean Money incumbents can more easily resist special
interest pressure to vote for policies backed by special interests
donors

- Clean Money is popular with voters and the press – it helps to
counter the perception that "politicians are for sale" and increases
their confidence in government

- 99% of Clean Money candidates in Maine said they were satisfied with
the system.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

With Clean Money, qualified candidates who show broad public support,
reject private funding, and agree to realistic spending limits will
receive a fixed amount of public funds. In Arizona and Maine it has
allowed more qualified people to run for office, virtually eliminated
money as a deciding factor in elections, and allowed candidates to
spend
their time with voters instead of raising money.

How does Clean Money work?

- Individuals who want to run for office agree to limit the amount of
private money they solicit or personally contribute to:

- A set number of seed money contributions in amounts no larger than
$100
up to a reasonable maximum total to explore whether they have support

- A set number of $5 qualifying contributions to show that they have a
broad base of support

- Qualifying individuals receive a Clean Money Debit Card with which
they
pay all of their campaign expenses

- Individuals receive up to a maximum amount to run in party primaries
and the winner of the primary receives additional funds for the
general election (3rd party candidates receive a smaller, but still
significant amount under AB 2949)

- If the Clean Money Candidate faces an opponent who does not run
clean
or is the target of ads or mailings by groups or individuals, they
receive matching funds within days to effectively respond

- The matching funds can total as much as 4 times the base amount of
Clean Money funding

==================================================================Susan
Lerner..... Executive Director Ashley Wax....... Media Awareness
Project
Director
Lori Fernand..... Development Director
Trent Lange...... Newsletter Editor

Email: Info@CAclean.org
http://www.CAclean.org

WAYS YOU CAN HELP
Please explore ways to become involved at our Volunteer page:
http://www.CAclean.org/volunteer/

Or support us financially to educate the public and grow the campaign:
http://www.CAclean.org/support/

You are receiving this email because you expressed an interest in
Clean
Money Campaign Reform. We expect these bulletins to appear about once
a
month. We'll keep you updated on campaign developments,
campaign finance reform issues in the news, what's happening in
other Clean Elections states, and how you can take action.

To sign up for future mailings, please send email with your request to Newsletter@CAclean.org

................................................................
The California Clean Money Campaign
8800 Venice Blvd., Suite 321 — Los Angeles, CA 90034
phone: (310) 837-8748, fax: (310) 837-1363, toll free: (800) 566-3780

Hearing on formula store legislation

Leigh Stackpole testifying Monday in favor of Matt's chain stores legislation. She owns Gimme Shoes which has stores in Hayes Valley and two other locations. The bill will be voted on by the Board on March 23rd.

Matt's fourth newsletter has news on how you can contact your supervisor to support the bill (formally known as the Formula Business legislation) & upcoming events.

Marriage protest

The California Supreme Court ordered a halt to same-sex weddings in San Francisco. Tom Ammiano spoke at a protest at Harvey Milk Plaza on Thursday, March 11th (more photos).

Anarchist Book Fair

City Lights table at the Anarchist Book Fair on Saturday, March 13th

More photos here and here

Ferlinghetti art opening

Opening of art by Lawrence Ferlinghetti Friday, March 5th at Matt's office. The paintings will be up til the end of the month.

More photos from the SF Sentinel.

Support Matt's chain store legislation

Update: the legislation will go before the Board on March 23rd. Call or write your supervisor to support it.

Help Supervisor Matt Gonzalez
stop chain stores from
sneaking up on our neighborhoods!

2) Now: Call, write, and email the Supervisors to let them know you support the legislation that seeks to protect neighborhood character and small businesses. This legislation will then will be heard at the full Board on Tuesday, March 23rd. For the numbers and emails of the Supervisors, click on www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_index.asp

WHAT
does Matt Gonzalez's legislation do?

* Requires neighborhood residents and businesses to be notified whenever a chain store (with more than eleven stores and
standardized services/etc.) intends to move into the area.

* Specifies additional permitting reviews for proposed formula retail stores in Cole Valley and prohibits formula businesses from a
four-block area of Hayes Valley.

WHY?

* Gives residents the option of having a more prominent voice in planning for the future of their neighborhoods

* Helps even the playing field between large chains and small independent businesses

* Supports the local economy

* Prevents San Francisco from further deterioration into Anytown, USA

* Saves the unique character of San Francisco neighborhoods

* Discourages architectural homogenization

* Promotes unique shopping experiences provided by independent
stores

~~~~For more information contact Supervisor Gonzalez's office at
554.7630

Coalition defeated Prop. J

Tuesday's election brought some astounding local results.

Despite the soaring popularity of Mayor Gavin Newsom, his workforce housing initiative (Proposition J) went down in flames. Newsom's camp must have known the polling results looked grim; he was nowhere to be found on the Pro-J trail in the last couple ofweeks.

Credit the organizers of the No on J campaign -- who managed to get the message out early to neighborhood groups that this measure posed a threat to community planning efforts. You can bet that moderates out in the city's western neighborhoods helped give this one its big win. Whenever San Francisco's progressives and neighborhood moderates come together -- the results look like those in the Prop J race.

The last time we clearly saw an example of this was in 2000 -- when the 'hoods and lefties united to dump former Mayor Willie Brown's slate of supes at the polls. Disgust with Brown's habit of dissing residents over developers in the high stakes construction deals of the late 1990s served as the catalyst. In this case, a strong desire to protect residents' say in housing development played the same role. And when you think about it, both the results of the 2000 supervisorial races -- in which San Franciscans elected their local leaders by district for the first time since the death of Harvey milk -- and the overwhelming victory of Prop J -- are testaments to voters' desires to preserve the city's neighborhoods.

Read more about Tuesday night's election results in my next
column for SF Progressive.

Related links: Chron article on defeat of J, Newsom's workforce housing issue paper (PDF)

Prop J loses, Prop E & I win

Making phone calls Tuesday afternoon to get out the vote

With nearly all the precincts in:

LOCAL PROPOSITION J

NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . 99,420 69.96
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,680 30.04

LOCAL PROPOSITION I

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . 97,197 67.72
NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,340 32.28

LOCAL PROPOSITION E
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . 72,286 52.29
NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . 65,959 47.71

Related link: Chronicle article on props which passed.

A noxious mailer

Adriel Hampton of the Examiner (who has been updating his blog) in a column highlighted in Matt's latest email newsletter writes:

LOCAL DEMOCRATS are subject to an unprecedented mail effort designed to reshape the local party steering committee. One piece deserves special attention. ...

On the east side, Assembly District 13,a mailing features a rendition of The Examiner masthead and our "Bush v. Newsom" headline. Inside, it highlights 12 candidates who've signed on to a loyalty oath to endorse only Democrats should they win the presidential election. On the attack, it singles out four sitting committee members -- Bill Barnes, Tracy Baxter, Joe Julian and Robert Haaland -- complete with grainy black-and-white photos, as people who "Don't support Democrats." Their crime? Failing to endorse Mayor Gavin Newsom in his run against Green Party member Matt Gonzalez. ...

This loyalty oath mailer -- with a version on the west side, Assembly District 12, targeting Dan Kalb and Steve Williams -- is noxious for the very premise that the Democratic nominee in a nonpartisan race is always the right candidate. It's notable that during the mayor's race, Gonzalez talked about same-sex marriage rights while Newsom skirted the issue. Today, Newsom stands alone while most leaders in his party speak out against gay marriage. ...

The second disturbing aspect of the mailer is the lack of disclosure as to who paid for it. Its return address is "San Franciscans for a New Direction," a corporation that doesn't report as a campaign entity and doesn't yet show up on the state's registry of businesses. For clarity's sake, it's a blessing that Wade Randlett, director of SF SOS, the downtown civic group backed by The City's wealthiest Democrats and Republicans, recently sent out a signed e-mail with a message nearly identical to the mailer. ...

Make that vote count on Tuesday. ...

Election coverage, archives, and blogs

We'll be providing coverage on election day and evening here. We'll also be posting photos here and more frequently at sfprogress.textamerica.com.

San Francisco will be posting election returns.

The Guardian will also be doing election coverage. And KPFA and KQED (national coverage starts at 7 pm, local at 9 pm) will be providing coverage on the radio.

Most of the earlier posts on this weblog are archives (the original versions from January and February).

And I want to repost this info on starting your own blog:

Bloggers for Matt - (contact Renee if you want to be added to the list) gives a sense of the some of the progressive blogs out there. You can start your own blog with Blogger (great free tool), Typepad (easy, powerful tool costing $5 to $15 a month), or Moveable Type (requires tech skills to set up). Or post your photos from a digital camera or cameraphone on a free photo/moblog at textamerica (unlimited photos, allows short video clips, often features progressive content) or Buzznet (limit of 10 photos a day, 200 a month).

Election night parties

We'll update this as we learn of more events (also scroll to the end for two events on Wednesday).

Yes on I, No on J Victory Party

Cafe Royale
800 Post @ Leavenworth
Begins at 8:00pm

Progressive Campaigns Solidarity Party!

Campaign HQ and Progressive Nerve Center, 1751 Mission St., S.F. (13th & Mission)

5 pm-Midnight
Peter Camejo, Matt Gonzalez, Daniel Sheehan
Plus: a Call from Dennis Kucinich

Help us to celebrate Dennis' precedent-setting campaign in California, and let us come together to support the next stage of carrying the progressive torch forward!

Dinner and drinks available for a small donation

Program:

5:00-7:00-Election Results come in on big screenŠ
7:00-8:00-Dinner, with music by the Aweyaz
8:00-9:15-Speakers
9:15-9:30-Kucinich to call in from OhioŠ
9:30-12:00-Music and Performance Art

Campaigns to join us in celebrating Dennis' candidacy this Super
Tuesday:

No on Prop J
Congressional District 8 write-in candidate, Terry Baum
DCCC candidates: Bruce Wolf, Rick Galbreath, Tracy Baxter, Robert
Haaland, Jerry Crowley
GCCC candidates: Marc Salomon, Susan King, and Kim Knox

Speaker Roster:

Peter Camejo, Green Party
Ross Mirkarimi, Green Party
Eric Quesada, Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition and No on Prop J
Daniel Sheehan, former President of the Christic Institute
J. Manuel Herrera, Board President, East Side Union School District,
San Jose
*Matt Gonzalez, Green Party to attend and possibly to speak
*Dennis Kucinich to call in from Ohio

Artists to perform: a terrific lineup of music, dance, and spoken word, provided by the Democreation Project Bio-diesel Bus Crew

Sasha Butterfly and Al Torree (guitar & vocals)
Terry Bradford (gospel, R&B)
Fantuzi (reggae)
Mystic Family Circus (circus acts, political puppetry)
The Aweyaz (percussion, sitar, guitar, vocals
Noodle Factory Performers (dance, spoken word)
Democreation Project Performers (break dance, hip-hop)

The Odeon is having a free primary party starting at 9 pm. 3223 Mission Street (near Valencia).

Wednesday, March 3rd, 8 pm, Benefit for Our City with A Murder of Crows, Broadcast Engine, the New York Girlfriends, a mystery band and perhaps a mystery political guest. $5. El Rio, 3158 Mission near Cesar Chavez.

Wednesday, March 3rd, 7:30 pm, "Thank The Gods It's Over!" party at Brainwash Cafe to celebrate the election being over.

An open letter on Arnold's bonds from Ralph Nader

[Whether you agree or disagree with his decision to run, he makes sense here. This op-ed in the Chronicle made a simiarly point.]

An Open Letter to California Voters:

A fair tax – where the wealthiest and corporations pay their fair share – would obviate the need for the Economic Recovery Bonds proposed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on the ballot tomorrow no matter how the courts rule on the Fiscal Recovery Bonds. Currently the wealthiest top 5% pay just 7.5% of their income in state taxes (income, sales and excise), while the poorest 20% pay over 11% of their income in state taxes (income, sales and excise). If the wealthiest merely paid a tax rate as much as the poorest, California would erase its deficit and have a surplus.

Twenty years ago corporations paid 14% of California’s state tax but
today they only pay 7%. Proposition 13 has made taxing corporations fairly much more difficult because property taxes under Proposition 13 include commercial property. Merely reappraising corporate property would raise $2.9 billion annually. Closing tax loopholes and tax shelters would raise $6.3 billion over the next five years.

The income of the richest 5% in California has risen 113% since 1993 while their tax rate has declined. Restoring the Governor Ronald Reagan/Pete Wilson taxes on the wealthiest would raise $6.8 billion in revenue over the next three years. This tax would only affect the wealthiest Californians. This would be a restoration of the 10% and 11% tax brackets on single payers earning more than approximately $140,000 and $280,000 per year respectively, and for married taxpayers filing jointly earning more than approximately $280,000 and $560,000 per year.

In addition a ¼ cent sales tax, which would be in place for the next
three fiscal years, is not a new tax or tax increase on consumers, but the same state sales tax earmarked for the Economic Recovery Bonds. The ¼ cent sales tax is expected to generate nearly $4 billion in revenue over the next three years.

Requiring corporations and the wealthiest Californians to pay their
fair share means California does not need the $15 billion that would be borrowed by the Economic Recovery Bond that voters will be voting on this March 2 no matter how the courts rule on the Fiscal Recovery Bonds that are included in the State’s current budget.

These approaches are not part of the choice Californians are being
offered tomorrow. And, consequently voters ought to render their judgment accordingly.

Ralph Nader

Sean Penn wins an Oscar

The photo above is from a Feb. 13th fundraiser for Kuncinich and Matt at New College in San Francisco.

Penn's articles for the San Francisco Chronicle on his trip to Iraq are worth reading. Part one and two.

Dennis Lehane's books are also worth reading (Mystic River is adapted from one of them).