Homeless Center on Caltrans Land, Techie Gopman Disliked?

You know the drill by now. A public records request to Mayor Ed Lee about his homeless Navigation Center on Mission near 16th Street produced hundreds of emails, including one about where to move the center after the pilot program ends and the property must be vacated.

San Francisco homeless czar Bevan Dufty in March wrote to a Caltrans official, suggesting one of the properties should be considered as the new location for the center:

"One possibility could be Caltrans property given that this [homeless issue] will always be a challenger around your properties. Can we identify someone who could work with John [Updike, head of the SF Real Estate Department] to explore possible locations?"

The response from Caltrans must have been verbally communicated because there was no email in the responsive public records released from the state agency.

Also in the records was a curious string of emails from Greg Gopman, a controversial young local tech dude who last year wildly demonized the homeless folks on the streets and government policies, and recently put on a town hall meeting at the Nourse Theater to discuss homeless matter.

As a side note, there were practically no currently or formerly homeless San Francisco people on the panels or in the audience of Gopman's meeting, according to people who were present.

Gopman emails Sam Dodge, an aide in Dufty's homeless coordinator office, asking for a phone chat and Dodge shares the request and his deep dislike of Gopman with Rebecca Foster in the Mayor's Office. Nice to see how public officials discuss their true thoughts about members of the public!

Sup. Breed Ceases Keeping a Written City Hall Calendar

The Sunshine Ordinance Task Force's complaint committee last week affirmed that the president of the Board of Supervisors, London Breed, is required to provide me and any member of the public with her work calendar. I lodged a complaint with the SOTF because of the various hurdles and delays Breed employed before turning over thirteen-months of monthly calendars.

My request last week to Breed for her February through April 15th calendar brought forth this email from her staffer Conor Johnston:

"Because of the voluminous nature of the documents that we will need to search to respond to your request, and because of the need to consult with another interested department, we are in invoking an extension under Administrative Code section 67.25(b). You will have a response by April 26."

But yesterday, I received this curious reply from her new aide Christine Keener, who until recently was an aide in Bevan Dufty homeless coordinator's office:

"Good Afternoon Mr. Petrelis, Supervisor Breed has not maintained a calendar since February 1st, 2015. Per, the charter rules, Supervisor Breed is not required to keep a calendar."

So, the aides had to examine voluminous records, when they don't exist, and then they discover boss Breed stopped keeping a written calendar the day the last date on the calendar of my previous public records request?

Accepting the ludicrous statement in the email from yesterday at face value, it's shocking the POBOS, President of the Board of Supervisors, it's disturbing that Breed has apparently ceased maintaining a calendar simply because this member of the public wanted it made transparent. What does that tell you about the POBOS's commitment to City Hall transparency?

I've lodged a new complaint with the SOTF about this matter and look forward to hearing members of that body question the POBOS and her aides.

San Francisco taxpayers deserve to know how Breed spends her legislative day and who she meets with. I can't believe a very busy supervisor is not keeping a written calendar.

Housing Rights Cmte's Sunshine Push & SF Housing Authority?

Painful as it was, back in October I had to acknowledge that a political adversary, Ken Cleaveland of the conservative Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club and govt affairs rep for the Business Owners and Managers' Association, had advocated for airing San Francisco Fire Commission meetings on SFGovTV at his first meeting in July as a member of the body.

The public record of the minutes from the July 10 commission meeting show he advocated for expanded govt sunshine questioning how to get hearing televised for taxpayers.

I recently began advocating with the San Francisco Housing Authority to get their meetings aired and received this note from Sara Shortt, the executive director of the Housing Rights Committee, about my project:

"We have been pushing for this for quite some time now, but have not been making much of an issue lately. Love that your picking it up as an issue. Any way we can help, we would be glad to. I feel very strongly about the need for this."

My reply to Sara:

"It would greatly help me to learn exactly where and when you or HRCSF advocated for TV airings, so I can cite the info, as I did with the fire commission when I learned commissioner Ken Cleaveland had started the push for them to get on TV at the July 10 SFFD meeting. Can your group roundup a few folks with cameras to be at the April meetings and put them or snippets on the web, please? Also, just sending a public letter to the SFHA building an email trail."

I didn't hear back from her. All too frequently, progressives in San Francisco especially working on housing and anti-gentrification issues in the Mission are not interested or willing to engage in ongoing debates with folks who have questions with or disagree about their agendas. Disappointed to see Shortt in this crowd.

Days after that exchange, I filed a public records request with the housing authority for emails from Shortt's group to the agency, the request was shared with her and she replied:

"I do not understand why you are requesting these. We email back and forth with the SFHA many times on a daily basis regarding client cases. You will be creating an enormous amount of work for people that we need to be doing their jobs, so that their tenants don't lose their housing. If they comply, you will be supplied with volumes of email correspondence about individual cases.

"How would that serve you? If you are trying to get documentation on a specific topic, you should at least narrow your request to be for emails pertaining to that topic. If you are trying to be helpful and work towards the same goals we are of getting taped commission meetings, than it seems strange that you wouldn't discuss this strategy with us first.

"My other concern is that a request such as this will increase paranoia among SFHA staff, who will in turn be far less forthcoming in email correspondence to us about cases, and thus make it much more difficult for us to resolve client issues. It is hard enough already to get SFHA cooperation and communication, believe me."

This was my response to Shortt:

"Not sure why you wanna be the buffer between a sunshine advocate and a public agency. Also quite surprised you would think any agency would not redact clients' info from responsive records. If SFHA is sharing deets on individual cases to sunshine advocates, complain to the agency about that violation of several laws.

"Not interested in your fears about creating paranoia at the agency and sense you are grasping at many straws to undermine my request or maintain a gatekeeper role for yourself. Who are you to advise me about transparency? I'm sunshining this City agency on several matters and I suspect as I move forward there's going to be resistance from you since you likely see the SFHA as your turf and who the hell am I to invade your domain.

"Regardless of motives or what you think is helpful regarding my advocacy, I asked you for evidence of when you or HRC/SF advocated in writing with SFHA about televising meetings. If you've been advocating on airings, where is the public record or sent written requests or expressed verbally at SFHA meetings, where the minutes should show the advocacy?

"I think there's a ton of bad progressive and housing advocacy that has directly contributed to the crises in the Mission and Citywide. You're seen as a go-to person for the press and some community 'organizers' and questions need to be raised about your leadership and others in professional capacities."

If the Housing Rights Committee has a public track records of pushing for expanding transparency at the housing authority, let's see it, please.

Cruz's NYC Gay Hotelier Pals Gave How Much to Giuliani?

There's a lot of controversy swirling back East about Ian Reisner and Mati Weiderpass, the lont-term gay business partners who own the Out Hotel in Manhattan and property on Fire Island, because of their friendly fireside chat earlier this week with super-conservative and viciously anti-LGBT Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. He needs all the assistance he can get to appeal to voters beyond the GOP base, as he runs for the 2015 presidential presidential nomination.

Gay and AIDS leader Tom Viola, a man with a spine and a huge heart who's executive director of Broadway Cares, announced this news today in response to Reisner and Weiderpass's chumminess with Cruz:

"It is with regret that we have decided to cancel this year’s edition of the Broadway Bares Solo Strips fundraiser, which was scheduled for May 10 at the NYC club 42West. We cannot in good conscience hold an event at a venue whose owners have alienated our community, as reflected in an April 23 New York Times story and an April 24 follow-up post. [...] This is not about partisan politics or punishment. This is about doing what’s right to ultimately ensure that our commitment to the men, women and children we serve cannot be questioned."

I checked the FEC records for Reisner and Weiderpass, and they have been quite generous with their checks to Democrats and the national party. However, Reisner in 2007 gave $2,300 to rotten Rudy Giuliani's campaign for president while Weiderpass donated $500 in 2008 to Giuliani.

Make of this info what you will. Mike and I endorse the boycott against all hotel properties owned by Reisner and Weirderpass. You should do the same.

Campos' Housing Moratorium Ballot Prop Language Released

My public records request to Sup. David Campos for documents related to his idea of a moratorium on market rate housing in the Mission District was filed yesterday, and today his office has provided me with lots of files which I'm still looking over.

What stands out so far is Campos' draft language for a comprehensive housing ballot initiative for this November that would be submitted to City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who is up for reelection and as proof of just how Sovietized democracy in San Francisco is, right now he faces no challenger.

Campos has also released a confidential five-page memo about the draft language for a potential ballot measure in the fall and I'll be sharing that later today. Till then, have a glance at the draft language we may all be voting on:

Valencia Street's Crime Wave Includes Armed Robbery

This message from James, one of the owners of the Stuff Vintage Modern store one-block away from our apartment, was posted to the Yahoo group for the McCoppin Hub Plaza area, which is in District 6. There's been a wave of crimes in our neighborhood, of which I had no clue till reading this note.

After Stuff was broken into and ransacked early one morning last week, I stopped in and introduced myself to the owners and expressed sympathy over their recent loss. I also mentioned the home invasion burglary we suffered last year.

We spoke, of course, about the myriad problems with the plaza and recent cosmetic changes by the City, including erecting a fence that is now down after no visible work performed by the Department of Public Works. Here are excerpts from James' email:

Subject: Wishing to Speak at meeting
RE: Sup Kim's Western SoMa Neighborhood Coalition Mtg
THIS THURSDAY, April 23rd @ 6:00pm
Location: Red Cross Building Community Room, 1667 Market Street @ Gough Street
(former Cafe Trieste)

To Supervisor Jane Kim and others attending the upcoming meeting, I really wish I was able to attend the [Mission station police] captain's community meeting last Wednesday night however I was the victim of the latest smash and grab from a gang of thieves. This brazen crime was shocking to the community and our neighborhood as seen all over the news. This occurred Thursday morning on Valencia street.

I was even more shocked to learn I beat the police to my store by 30 minutes - even after seeing several police drive right by my store. Then I was even more shocked to learn that Thursday morning the entire southern station only had 2 officers on duty during the crime that victimized me and the small businesses I support within my store - that is why they were so late in arriving.

[After cleaning up the robbery mess] just before I was ready to leave Thursday evening right in front of my store just as a father walked by with his small child around 10:30pm my neighboring restaurant's employees were robbed at gun point as they walked on the sidewalk home by two thugs. That same day another business near by store was robbed of there cash from there store.

This all happens just after a month when I emailed everyone about the horrible situation at McCoppin Park nearby where the homeless took over and made such a mess of the park it was closed up and fenced in since the damage was so bad.

I had emailed about the park shortly after the warning by a city official regarding a hatchet wielding man and then a death in the park. I learned during all of this that the city in significantly understaffed for Police. The city is supposed to have 2000 officers and only has 1600. What is being done about this rampant crime? What is being done about the shortage of Police, obviously they can't even solve all these crimes?

As of today I haven't heard from anyone from the city or Police in response to my inquires about my business being the victim of a string of smash and grabs.

The city should be flush with cash with all this incredible robust economy and property taxes from all the new record breaking home sales and new construction and businesses opening up in San Francisco.

I will be at this upcoming meeting to speak. I hope to hear some answers to these questions before city officials start to leave. I have copied many people so they are aware of the dire situation and so those attending the meeting will demand this be near the top of the agenda at the upcoming meeting. 

Italian Media: Dump Cordileone Ad in SF Chron = "Flop Survey" 

Curious as to whether either Vatican or Italian media reported on the full-page ad in last week's San Francisco Chronicle, calling on the Pope to dump Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, I googled for any coverage in Italy.

Here's a rough, broken English translation of what appeared in Il Foglio today:

"The flop of the survey to hunt Msgr. Cordileone: 88 percent say no
Faithful against crème de la crème in San Francisco
by Matthew Matzuzzi
22 Aprile 2015

"The Archbishop of San Francisco, Salvatore Cordileone One hundred representatives of the intelligentsia of Catholic San Francisco have decided to buy a full page in the newspaper San Francisco Chronicle to beg the Pope to remove the bishop from his chair. The San Francisco Gate accompanies the initiative even with a survey, but 88 percent of respondents said that Cordileone is untouchable."

That was not a scientific poll. It was a click-bait tool to attract eyeballs to the Chronicle's web site.

On Sunday, April 19, the magazine L'Espresso ran a long article about the controversial archbishop, the issues that motivated the Catholic leaders to take out the ad and the response of readers at the Chronicle's web site. Nothing about the anti-Cordileone ad was found at the Vatican's news site.

I'm not sure the ad's message reached the Pope, the Vatican's curia or Catholics in Italy. Perhaps to achieve that attention in Rome, the San Francisco folks who placed the Chronicle ad should run it in an Italian newspaper.

SOTF: Petrelis vs Supes. Breed & Campos, Clerk of the Board 

As always happens with my complaints to this important City body, I never know if the task force will find the public officials in violation of local open government laws. Win or lose, just having the task force hear from both sides has often led to better sunshine performances by members of the Board of Supervisors or City departments. Here's the notice about my four complaints that will be considered this afternoon:

You are receiving this notice because you are named as a Complainant or Respondent in one of the following complaints scheduled before the Complaint Committee of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force,

1) to issue a determination of jurisdiction;
2) to review the merits of the complaint to focus the complaint or otherwise assist the parties to the complaint; and/or
3) to issue a report and/or recommendation to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force.

Date: April 21, 2015
Location: City Hall, Room 408
Time: 5:00 p.m.

Complaints:

File No. 15029: Complaint filed by Michael Petrelis against Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, London Breed, President, and David Campos, Member, Board of Supervisors, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25, for failure to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 15022: Complaint filed by Michael Petrelis against London Breed, President, Board of Supervisors, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21(l), for failure to make records available in any form requested which is easily generated.

File No. 15021: Complaint filed by Michael Petrelis against Supervisor David Campos, Board of Supervisors, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.25, for failure to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 15033: Complaint filed by Michael Petrelis against Supervisor David Campos, Board of Supervisors, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.25, for failure to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.

How Many Folks Are Clients at Mayor Lee's Homeless Center?

A public records request to the Mayor's Office for census figures on the number of people who've accessed Mayor Ed Lee's homeless Navigation Center, located on Mission near 16th Street, produced the responsive documents here.

Last week, I obtained the homeless emergency declaration issued in January by the Department of Public Works in order to cut through City Hall red tape and allow construction work to start on the center, and the decree stated there are at least 6,000 chronically homeless people on the streets of San Francisco.

These charts and data come from the City's Controller's Office and show that a total of 31 individuals have been clients of the Navigation Center since it opened in mid March. While the number is relatively low, considering the 6,000 homeless folks on the streets and under freeway ramps, it's a start.

NYT's Friedman-Endowed Israel Fellowships Issued at Stanford

How many current opinion columnists for any American newspaper have created and endowed a fellowship, other than controversial Tom Friedman who occupies precious real estate on the New York Times's Op-Ed page? None, that I'm aware of and if you know of any, please share their names with me.

(Friedman, 2013 fellow Maya Kornberg, Shultz.)

A story last week in the Stanford Daily by Qitong Cao shed light on a fellowship that began with funding from Friedman and his wife Ann Friedman, and is actively supported by former Republican secretary of state Henry Kissinger:

"Winners of the 2015 George and Charlotte Shultz Fellowship for Modern Israel Studies were announced Wednesday morning during a breakfast reception at Hillel. George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, both former U.S. Secretaries of State, attended the reception, emphasizing the significance of conducting field study in Israel. [...]

The Hillel at Stanford web site shares this info about how the fellowship began:

"Thanks to the generosity of Stanford alumna Ann Friedman and her husband, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, Hillel at Stanford is pleased to establish the George and Charlotte Shultz Fellowship in Modern Israel Studies to support student research on issues relevant to modern Israel and the betterment of Israeli-Arab relations. Each year, Hillel at Stanford will award a $5,000 fellowship to a Stanford student to conduct research pertaining to modern Israeli politics, culture, society, and economy, and/or the betterment of Israeli-Arab relations (including Israeli-Palestinian relations). [...] Upon completion of the projects, research reports will be sent to both Tom Friedman and George Shultz."

Among those on the fellowship's review committee is another former Republican secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, making it very clear this endeavor has conservative political leanings.

Since this fellowship began with funding from the Friedmans, and may still be receiving donations from the New York Times columnist and his wife, and research from fellows is shared with Friedman as part of the program, I believe it would be more accurate and honest to call this the Shultz and Friedman Fellowship.

So, is Friedman's involvement with Stanford and the fellowship kosher according the the New York Times' ethical guidelines? I think yes, even if it might be a gray area since Friedman is not a body making decisions. Here's what the NYT ethical journalism guide says:

"Normally the restriction on joining trustee boards or advisory committees will not apply to organizations that are highly unlikely to generate news of interest to The Times and that do not generally seek to shape public policy. These typically include houses of worship, community charities, local libraries, fine arts groups, hobby groups, youth athletic leagues, country clubs and alumni groups. Within reason staff members may help such groups with relatively modest fundraising. They should not play a leading role or ever lead a donor to expect a favor in return. [...] Staff members should think carefully about their own contributions to various causes, bearing in mind the need for neutrality on divisive issues."

An argument can be made that the fellowship is about shaping public policy and on a number of highly divisive issues, but since Friedman isn't in charge of who gets a research grant or how the students' finding will be used, Friedman's editors approved his participation in the fellowship.

What are your thoughts about this? Do you think Friedman has violated either the Times' or general ethical journalism rules?