As scheduled, the Board of Supervisors today discussed the proposed
eminent domain taking of the land owned by Brian O'Flynn and Martin
Coyne at 701 Lombard Street. The issue was taken up around 3pm, and
there were so many people wanting to give public comment that the
meeting didn't finish until after 1030pm.
At first the opponents seemed to have far greater numbers present,
including a whole group of about 30-40 mostly elderly Chinese residents
who got up and left en masse after their spokesperson had his say. But
as the afternoon progressed, the balance began shifting in our favor.
Since every seat in the Board room was taken, and the security people
insisted that no one without a seat could stay in the room, a number of
people were banished to Room 266. Apparently these people and most of
the latecomers were on our side, because what started out as probably a
75% - 25% ratio in favor of the eminent domain action had completely
reversed itself by the end of the evening to probably the same
percentage or more against the land grab, with the overall number of
people present still filling up at least half of the room.
Again there was obviously a large contingent from the Residential
Builders Association, but this time a higher percentage of non-RBA
eminent domain opponents seemed to be from the North Beach neighborhood
and other non-RBA folks. Kelly was the only other LP member I saw (we
both spoke again), but many of the speakers made excellent libertarian
points in their arguments.
The other side put several children who looked to be in about the
first grade up to speak, an obvious play for emotions that seemed to
carry little weight with anyone. For better or for worse, the presence
and testimony of Brian's elderly mother did not seem to have much
noticeable impact either. Brian himself did a fine job, and his lawyer,
a petite Asian woman who presented a striking contrast standing next to
him at the microphone, was really sharp. She ably defended his position
against the queries of Supervisor Aaron Peskin, the main mover behind
the land grab attempt. One of the effective points she made was
pointing out that any plan which included more than just acquiring the
land itself (Supervisor Matt Gonzalez made it clear that he would be
more positively inclined to support the land taking if the proposal
included plans to close a block of Mason Street) would legally require
an additional process involving an Environmental Impact Report in order
to proceed.
After the hours and hours of 3-minute speeches from the public, the
Supervisors finally had a chance to give their own extemporaneous
remarks on the matter, and Aaron Peskin, Tony Hall, Fiona Ma, and Matt
Gonzalez each took the opportunity. Tony Hall really did us proud. Not
only did he give a great and long-winded speech that any Libertarian
would have loved, he also interrogated Rec & Park General Manager
Elizabeth Goldstein with all the zeal of a trial lawyer grilling an
uncooperative witness. Fiona Ma also gave a great speech, even
referring to one of the points I had made in my comments, which was
that I doubted many of the voters who supported the parks bond which
would be used to pay for the taking would have voted to have their
money used to appropriate property without the owners' consent.
In the end, Peskin admitted he did not have the votes to pass the
measure (he needed eight, while it would only take four to block it),
therefore he sought to have action on the matter continued (delayed)
until November 25. Hall argued for killing the measure immediately
rather than taking it up again later, but unfortunately a majority of
the Board voted to revisit the matter after the Public Resource and
Open Space something-or-other Committee (PROSAC) had a chance to weigh
in.
Hall, Ma, Dufty, and Newsom voted for justice, while Peskin,
McGoldrick, Maxwell, Sandoval, Daly, Ammiano, and Gonzalez voted to
give the government another chance to steal the property later. It was
encouraging that most of the Supervisors had little or nothing to say
during the whole affair. Only Peskin actively supported the plan to
take the land for a park, and not as aggressively as Hall and Ma
condemned it. I was amused to note that Newsom, who said not a word
during the entire proceedings even though a couple speakers from the
public appealed to him by name, sat away from the table in the press
box area for a good part of the evening, as though he wanted to be as
far away from it all as possible without actually leaving the room.
The best part of the whole thing from my perspective was that the
issue of eminent domain was very much in play. Furthermore, quite a few
speakers vigorously attacked the entire concept of eminent domain while
those defending the practice were fewer and less assertive in
proclaiming it a good thing. Most of the opposition concentrated their
arguments on how great it would be to have a new park in the location,
studiously avoiding any acknowledgment of the coercive aspect of the
proposal.
Also enjoyable was seeing Rec & Park manager Goldstein on the
defensive and having a really tough night of it. RBA president Joe
O'Donogue laid into her even more strongly than I had in my three
minutes early on -- I complained about the practice of city officials
like her lobbying the Board on the taxpayer dime, among other things.
O'Donogue baldly called her a liar and stating that he was going to
initiate a process allowed by a provision of the city charter that
enables department heads to be removed from their positions. After this
on top of the whole dog leash fiasco, I'm sure it couldn't happen to a
more deserving bureaucrat.
Although it was difficult to have extended conversations with anyone
during the hearing, I did pass out a few Mike Denny fliers to people I
thought might be sympathetic. Finally, I had a brief but very exciting
exchange with the feisty RBA leader. I gave him one of Mike's fliers,
and he said he likes Mike, but confirmed what I'd heard, that his group
is already committed to backing Angela Alioto in this election.
However, he said that if Mike were to run against Supervisor Jake
McGoldrick next year, (who O'Donogue called a "dumbass") the RBA would
endorse him and provide money and supporters. He didn't even say "we
might" endorse. He said "we will!"
Mike, I know you're feeling burned out right now, but when the mayoral
race is over I hope you'll at least sit down with Joe and talk about
it. Something like this, building on your current effort could really
get the ball rolling for other institutional support and actually give
the LP a shot at a Board of Supervisors seat.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Rent DVDs from home.
Over 14,500 titles. Free Shipping
& No Late Fees. Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mk9osC/hP.FAA/3jkFAA/69cplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/