City Hall Digest: Commission Drama Across Departments, What’s Next After the TLC Closure, and a Study on 469 Stevenson

City Hall Digest is TogetherSF Action’s weekly dispatch from San Francisco’s City Hall, broken into bite-sized pieces—because understanding local government is your fundamental right.

Commissions Across Governmental Departments (Rightfully) Come Under Scrutiny

San Francisco has 130 commissions: groups of appointed, semi-public officials in charge of overseeing other governmental departments and processes. If that sounds like a lot of red tape, it is. And in recent weeks, there’s also been a lot of drama regarding a number of city commissions, leading many to wonder if this is really an effective way for a city to run. It’s distracting and unproductive, as the Board of Supervisors has had to engage in petty political fights instead of solving more pressing problems.

First, a quick recap on the Elections Commission, which oversees the Department of Elections. A few weeks ago, the Elections Commission removed the successful and universally-liked Director of the Department of Elections, John Arntz, to open the position up to a more diverse field of candidates. That is well-meaning, but this was one of the few things in San Francisco that actually wasn’t broken, and didn’t need fixing. The news about Artnz’s dismissal led to a rare occurrence—complete agreement across San Francisco politics that Arntz deserved to stay after leading the department for 20 years. Arntz’s employees rallied behind him. Supervisor Aaron Peskin wrote legislation, passed by the Board, to prevent the Elections Commission from getting money to look for a new director. After weeks of occupying headlines and turning the city into fodder for a certain news outlet, the commission backed down. 

However, as the saying goes, one door closes and another opens. This time it’s the Police Commission that has, once again, served as a distraction for the Board of Supervisors. Last week, Supervisor Aaron Peskin fast-tracked the appointment of the commission’s president, Cindy Elias. The problem? Elias isn’t due for consideration for reappointment for another five months, in April. This is an obviously calculated move: Peskin is trying to push the appointment through before the political makeup of the Board of Supervisors changes in January, and her appointment might not be as easily approved.

At last week’s Board of Supervisors meeting, they voted 8–3 (with Supervisors Dorsey, Mandelman, Stefani dissenting) to declare their intent to support Elias’ reappointment—it was not a binding action, as they will still have to make a decision on her reappointment when the Board reconvenes post-holidays. During the meeting, Supervisor Stefani raised questions as to a possible conflict of interest over the actions of Elias’ husband (attorney Lateef Gray) and his oversight of the investigation of police officer Terrance Stangel, who was acquitted earlier this year of misconduct on duty. Supervisor Hillary Ronen later responded to Stefani’s questioning, calling it “gross” and implied Stefani was being sexist, saying: “When you attack a woman of color, referring constantly to her husband and what her husband does, I think it’s important that that leader who stands on her own can be in the room.” Supervisor Dean Preston referred to Stefani’s questioning as “character assassination.”

Because our commissions are legally insulated from public accountability (members are appointed by elected officials rather than running for election themselves), public discourse has turned to the question of whether this is an effective way to structure such important governmental decisions. It’s not the first time this question has been raised this year: as we’ve discussed previously in this blog series, the Mayor attempted to hold some of her appointees accountable by reserving a signed resignation letter in case a commissioner were to go rogue. While she received flak at the time for the practice, Supervisor Peskin said that the Elections Commission saga was “malfeasance,” and “almost becomes justification” for having the letters on hand. Commissioners’ lack of accountability leads to poor decision-making and headaches for both the public and the city’s elected officials.

These are simply the most recent examples in a long history demonstrating that commissions are a systemic failure. Commissions are easily prone to politicization, political fights, ill will and corruption, and the city’s reliance upon them should be examined.

The Tenderloin Center is Closed. Now What?

The city’s plans—or lack thereof—to address the opioid epidemic have been confusing and frustrating for many. When the Tenderloin Center closed, there was the expectation that the Department of Public Health would move forward with a plan to create a dozen similar sites, called Wellness Hubs, around the city. 

Legal issues, and data that suggests the Tenderloin Center was not effective, has led the Mayor to scrap that decision, for now, and the debate about how to solve the myriad problems related to the drug crisis rages on. Supervisors Ronen and Dorsey have called for the centers to open, citing the urgency to lower drug deaths. Recovery advocates have pointed out that reversing deaths is merely a short-term (albeit important) solution without a serious plan to get users into recovery. 

Plus, data on The Tenderloin Center has revealed that there are public safety concerns arising from the Center for both drug users and the rest of the city’s residents—the city must find a solution that stems the flow of overdose deaths while also protecting neighborhoods from the negative externalities of drug using and dealing.

We’re talking about it more on the blog.

The Infamous 469 Stevenson Project Might Actually Get Approved—But Will It Get Built?

This proposed housing project on a Nordstrom parking lot has become local myth by now. It helped define an Assembly race, it reignited the housing debate, and most importantly, it continues to serve as a reminder that many lawmakers in San Francisco have prioritized making a point over coming up with real solutions to the city’s housing crisis.

Loud and persistent claims that the project would gentrify the SoMa neighborhood “beyond the point of no return” were a common refrain for opponents of the project. However, a new study borne of the project’s pause shows the complete opposite is true: the construction of this project would increase the pressure on lower income families in the area to move out by 2 percent, max.

Other statistics in the study all pretty much indicate the same thing—that the project proposal would not do much of anything, except create more housing. This study was heard at the Planning Commission last week without controversy, and it looks like the fight is over. But at what cost?

After a year of contentious debates over this project inside and outside City Hall as well as a $750,000 redo of an environmental report, the housing project at 469 Stevenson is finally looking like it will be approved. Whether any developer will want to eat the costs of actually building it, though, is the crucial question.