Blog note: this article references a 2014 grand jury report.
A pair of high-profile resignations at the Port of San Francisco signal that the time is ripe to move forward with a long overdue reform of the agency responsible for the stewardship of San Francisco’s unique waterfront. Now is the time for the city to deal with the deep-seated problems that have been brought to a head with the resignations of the port director and one of the port commissioners.
In August, Mel Murphy, a real estate developer whom Mayor Ed Lee appointed to the Port Commission in 2013, resigned after months of controversy and a lawsuit by the city over his repeated violations of building codes and ethics laws. Last week, port Executive Director Monique Moyer said she will resign at the end of this month to take a job in commercial real estate after nearly 12 years on the job as the day-to-day port leader.
The Port Commission manages some of the most valuable and visible property in the world — 7½ miles of land and piers that stretch along the San Francisco Bay from Fisherman’s Wharf to Candlestick Point. However, the commission’s dysfunction has become evident over the past three years.
Port commission problems
The first red flag went up in 2013, when 67 percent of city voters rejected the 8 Washington luxury condominium project proposed by the port to occupy prime public land near the Ferry Building.
The second was when the America’s Cup fiasco evicted longtime waterfront tenants such as Teatro Zinzanni and cost the city and the port millions of dollars in public funds instead of bringing in the promised $1.4 billion.
The last big red flag came out when it was announced by the mayor and the developer as a done deal that the Golden State Warriors’ stadium, hotel and condo towers would be built at Piers 30-32. That project ultimately was moved elsewhere — in the face of a ballot initiative that would have required such a large waterfront development to be approved at the ballot box. Voters overwhelmingly passed the initiative.
What each of these waterfront debacles has in common is that they were politically juiced by wealthy developers and strong-armed through the commission by the mayor. The result was, instead of getting serious scrutiny, the Port Commission approved these projects summarily and all by a unanimous vote.
The source of these problems? Excessive politicization of the Port Commission, according to the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury in its June 2014 report, “Port of San Francisco: Caught Between Public Trust and Private Dollars.” The jury’s No. 1 recommendation was to curb the heavy influence of the mayor, who appoints both the director and all five commissioners. The jury recommended a Port Reform Charter Amendment be placed on the ballot to create a more independent and balanced commission by dividing appointments between the mayor and the Board of Supervisors, as is done with other important city bodies.
Unfortunately, so far both the mayor and Board of Supervisors have ignored this sensible recommendation. With a leadership transition under way, now is the time for port reform.
San Francisco’s waterfront is not simply a real estate opportunity — it’s a precious place linking the city to the bay that all the people deserve the chance to enjoy. We need a Port Commission that will fight for that. I hope every San Franciscan will urge their supervisor to put the Civil Grand Jury’s recommendation on the ballot. Let’s give voters the chance not only to identify the port’s problems but also to fix them.
February 3, 2016
San Francisco Chronicle
By Jon Golinger
No comments:
Post a Comment