{"id":29697,"date":"2023-11-07T12:47:18","date_gmt":"2023-11-07T20:47:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/?p=29697"},"modified":"2023-11-07T12:47:19","modified_gmt":"2023-11-07T20:47:19","slug":"what-all-this-talk-about-giving-the-mayor-more-power-really-means","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/2023\/11\/07\/what-all-this-talk-about-giving-the-mayor-more-power-really-means\/","title":{"rendered":"What all this talk about giving the mayor more power really means"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

It’s all about giving Big Money more ability to control San Francisco. That has always been a disaster.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By TIM REDMOND<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

NOVEMBER 3, 2023 (48hills.org)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sup. Rafael Mandelman has introduced the latest in a series of ballot measures that seek to solve the city\u2019s problems by giving the mayor more power and eliminating community oversight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This approach does nothing to address the real problems: A downtown tax base that is collapsing, massive economic inequality, a housing and displacement crisis, and a handful of billionaires pouring massive money into election campaigns to allow them to control the city.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Sup. Rafael Mandelman wants to give the mayor more power, which translates into less democracy<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mandleman\u2019s proposal, which he wants to see on the November, 2024 ballot, would do the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u2014Repeal the prohibition on Deputy Mayors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014Allow the Mayor authority to fire directors of executive departments overseen by commissions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014Allow the Mayor to veto Board of Supervisors appointments to commissions with split appointments where the Board has authority to reject Mayoral appointments.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014Eliminate the authority of the Mayor and Board of Supervisor to place initiative ordinances on the ballot. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014Authorize a \u2018Commission Streamlining Taskforce (COST)\u2019 to consolidate or eliminate commissions, boards, and advisory bodies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014Expand \u2018Local Emergency\u2019 powers to expedite contracting, procurement, and hiring to more effectively address longstanding crises, such as homelessness and drug overdoses. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The deputy mayor thing isn\u2019t that important. It harks back to the late 1980s, when Art Agnos was mayor, and he decided to create a \u201ccabinet\u201d form of government with eight people carrying the title of deputy mayor, overseeing different parts of the administration. They all made what was then a lot of money, more than other mayoral aides had made in the past\u2014although the overall cost of the Mayor\u2019s Office decreased when Agnos took over from Dianne Feinstein.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The conservatives on the Board of Supes made a lot of noise about this, all of which ended with a (pointless) charter amendment banning that title.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Who cares.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Who cares is also a good approach to the provisi<\/strong>on allowing the mayor to fire department heads. I can\u2019t think of a single time when a mayor has wanted to get rid of a department head and been stopped by a commission with, as they all are, a majority of mayoral appointees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s be honest: The mayor can already fire anyone in the administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But that rarely happens. All sorts of incompetent\u2014and sometimes corrupt\u2014people run departments, not because the mayor can\u2019t fire them but because the mayor chooses not to.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most of the rest is about giving the mayor\u2014and, frankly, people and organizations with a lot of money\u2014more power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

San Francisco has a lot of commissions and advisory bodies. Those exist in part to get a larger number of people (other than the mayor and the supes) involved in governance. They don\u2019t always work, and they can slow things down, which is not always bad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But when you remove commissions, you give the mayor more power\u2014and London Breed is already one of the most powerful mayors in the country. The idea that commissions are preventing her from addressing the city\u2019s problems is just an excuse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Same with allowing the mayor to veto the supes appointments to commissions. The mayor already appoints either all of the members or a  majority of the members of almost every single commission in the city. She\u2019s even tried to force all of them to submit undated resignation letters to she can get rid of them mid-term if they don\u2019t do exactly what she says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019m also not that concerned about the mayor or four supes having the power to put something before the voters.<\/strong> Yeah, San Francisco has a lot of ballot measures. Maybe direct democracy is too much, but I haven\u2019t really seen the problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let me give an example:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 1986 (yeah, I\u2019m that old, and I was here) advocates for limits on highrise office construction, using entirely volunteer organizing, gathered enough signatures to put what became Prop. M on the ballot. It was an example of precisely what Hiram Johnson had in mind when he created the initiative process: A mayor, a Planning Commission, and a majority of the supes refused to do anything at all to limit runaway development that was threatening the city\u2019s budget, clogging the streets, and leading to large-scale gentrification and displacement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Downtown leaders and big developers were furious and terrified; they knew public sentiment was against them, and the cash cow that was uncontrolled office development was seriously threatened.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Somehow, and we will never know how, they got the City Attorney\u2019s Office to come up with a bogus ruling that the forms were filled out wrong, meaning all the signatures were invalid and the measure wouldn\u2019t be on the ballot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the supporters of the measure still had a chance, since four\u2014and only four\u2014supervisors were on their side. Those four signed the paperwork to place it on the ballot. It passed, and changed city planning (for the better).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All of this is, in effect, a check and balance on the power of big money. For decades, progressives have looked for ways to increase democracy in the city, up against a small number of very rich plutocrats who want big-business issues to drive all public policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That sector of the wealthy and powerful has won every mayoral election since 1987, when Art Agnos won on a grassroots progressive platform. Under citywide elections, the plutocrats controlled every Board of Supervisors from 1979 to 2000. They controlled every commission, and often progressive ideas were entirely missing from the discussion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Slowly in the past 23 years, we\u2019ve seen moves to erode that control\u2014district elections of supes, split appointments to major commissions, public financing of local elections, taxes on the biggest businesses and real-estate ventures\u2014and, often, that\u2019s required going direct to the ballot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mayor London Breed, like all of her predecessors since 1991, would never have accepted these proposals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s what the talk of \u201cmayoral power\u201d is all about. With unlimited spending from independent expenditure committees, the plutocrats have been able to get the person they choose elected to the top citywide office. They\u2019ve been less able to control district supervisor elections, since a grassroots effort can still beat Big Money in a relatively small district, and ballot measures taxing the wealthy have won voter support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So it\u2019s not about mayoral power. It\u2019s about limiting the ability of grassroots organizers to challenge Big Money. If allowing plutocrats to run the city makes for more \u201cstreamlined\u201d government, let\u2019s remember that we\u2019ve seen that happen, and it didn\u2019t work.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tim Redmond<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tim Redmond has been a political and investigative reporter in San Francisco for more than 30 years. He spent much of that time as executive editor of the Bay Guardian. He is the founder of 48hills.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It’s all about giving Big Money more ability to control San Francisco. That has always been a disaster. By TIM REDMOND NOVEMBER 3, 2023 (48hills.org) Sup. Rafael Mandelman has introduced the latest in a series of ballot measures that seek to solve the city\u2019s problems by giving the mayor more… Continue reading → <\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[1371,1118,1119,960],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29697"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29697"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29697\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":29699,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29697\/revisions\/29699"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29697"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29697"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29697"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}