Following yet another year of brutal heatwaves and devastating wildfires, Californians have the chance to tell elected officials they support urgent climate action by voting for a $10 billion climate resilience bond on the November ballot.

During an unprecedented budget surplus two years ago, California earmarked $54 billion to forge “an oil-free future” and protect residents from the extreme effects of climate change. That surplus morphed into a multibillion-dollar deficit within a year, after rosy projections of rising revenues from income taxes failed to materialize, forcing Gov. Gavin Newsom and state lawmakers to cut and defer billions from their ambitious climate spending plans.

California’s budget problems will likely continue, analysts say, as will the climate change-fueled disasters that have battered the state. To provide a stable source of funding for urgently needed climate action, legislators passed a bill in July that seeks voters’ approval to authorize the state to borrow $10 billion to underwrite climate resiliency projects. Newsom signed it the same day. 

Now scientists, policymakers, climate experts and environmental justice advocates are among those urging voters to support the Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024, on the ballot as Proposition 4. 

“Multiple excellent studies show that paying now will save lives and save dollars,” said Ellie Cohen, CEO of The Climate Center, a nonprofit dedicated to reducing climate pollution, and a member of the Yes on 4 campaign. “Even a short-term delay in adopting strong climate policies dramatically increases the cost of decarbonization and risks irreversible ecological impacts,” she said.

A warmer climate is likely to permanently alter ecosystems, trigger a wave of species extinctions and reduce crop yields through more frequent heat waves and drier soil, a 2021 report by the nonpartisan think tank Energy Innovation Policy & Technology warned. 

Failing to prepare for catastrophic wildfires, drought, extreme heat and other extreme events could cost the state an estimated $113 billion in damages a year by 2050, according to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Most of the costs come from lives lost, impacts from drought and damage to coastal properties and inland regions hit by the type of weeks-long flooding that killed thousands and bankrupted the state during the 1861-1862 megaflood. 

Yet $113 billion a year is likely an underestimate. The assessment did not account for the costs of several other climate-related disasters, including health harms and property damage from wildfires, illness and death from extreme heat and impacts of drought on water quality, wildlife and ecosystems. Damages from the calamitous 2018 wildfires cost nearly $150 billion, a peer-reviewed study found. 

Investing in resilience pays

Responding to climate disasters costs exponentially more than investing in resilience, experts say. Every dollar spent on climate preparedness saves $6 on disaster relief, according to Federal Emergency Management Agency estimates. That means investing $10 billion in climate resiliency now could avoid a $60 billion cleanup and recovery bill down the road.

If voters approve Prop. 4, state officials will immediately start funding projects to improve access to safe drinking water, reduce risks from wildfire and drought, make food systems more resilient, restore habitats and protect communities, farmland and ecosystems from climate risks. 

“Bond funds are an appropriate and very effective way to fund many of the climate change-adaptation actions that many cities and counties are planning right now but don’t have local revenue sources to support,” said Laura Engeman, an environmental scientist at the University of California, San Diego. “A lot needs to be done around coastal resilience, in terms of environmental restoration as well as the connection between restoration and public infrastructure. These bonds provide a way to plan a lot of that.”

For example, many jurisdictions are looking at restoring sand dunes, wetlands and other ecosystems to protect infrastructure like roads and water systems, Engeman said.

“We saw a lot of degradation and erosion at our beaches over these last two years, which were big storm years,” she said. “You’re seeing a number of different cities right now that are looking at immediate needs for repair, recovery and building what we call ‘a coastal resilience buffer’ into the beach and shoreline landscape to buy a little bit of time to figure out how to actually adapt.”

Other projects include wetlands restoration, which involves upgrading bridges to expand the space for water to move and drain during floods, and retooling watersheds that channel polluted floodwaters into public spaces. “The bond is a good use of public dollars because there are a lot of benefits to the broader community,” Engeman said. “We’re saving money on the back end by spending money up front.”

Prop. 4 would support loans and grants to local governments, Native American tribes, nonprofit organizations and businesses to reduce the risks and impacts of a warming world. 

The largest share would go to safeguarding drinking water and dwindling groundwater supplies, and protecting rivers and streams from toxic pollution ($3.8 billion), followed by investments in wildfire prevention and extreme heat mitigation ($1.95 billion), protection of natural lands, parks and wildlife ($1.9 billion), protection of coastal lands, bays and oceans ($1.2 billion), transitioning to clean energy ($850 million) and supporting climate-smart agriculture ($300 million). 

Advancing climate justice 

Prop. 4 ensures that at least 40 percent of funds go to projects that benefit vulnerable and disadvantaged communities, in keeping with the Biden administration’s Justice40 Initiative. 

“A significant part of this bond prioritizes the frontline communities that bear the brunt of climate change impacts and impacts from the fossil fuel industry,” said The Climate Center’s Cohen.

California officials released an updated plan to protect communities from extreme heat in 2022, noting that “every corner” of the state will be affected by higher average temperatures and more frequent and severe heat waves. Farmworkers are increasingly vulnerable to heat-related illness and death, particularly in regions with chronically bad air, as Inside Climate News reported last year. Prop. 4 would allocate $450 million to help primarily disadvantaged communities and vulnerable populations adapt to extreme heat.

Access to safe drinking water has been a human right in the Golden State since 2012, yet close to 400 public water systems fail to meet drinking water standards. Nearly a million residents, primarily in low-income communities and communities of color, lack clean water in their homes, according to the state water board. Another 1.5 million people rely on water systems at risk of failing. 

The bond earmarks $610 million to provide safe, affordable, reliable sources of drinking water, including to tribal communities, and to develop drought-contingency plans and monitor for contaminants like PFAS “forever chemicals,” which have been detected in supplies serving more than 25 million people, the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council recently reported.

Some of California’s most endangered resources would also benefit. The bond allocates $170 million to improving air quality, public health and habitat around the beleaguered Salton Sea, which supports more than 120,000 migrating shorebirds, several species of concern and hundreds of other bird species southeast of Palm Springs. Another $50 million would go to restoring the state’s critically endangered salmon populations.

The proposition has broad support from environmental groups, environmental justice advocates, labor unions, water agencies and renewable energy companies. Opposition includes the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which called it “reckless to use borrowed money” and Republican legislators led by the minority leader of the state Senate, Brian Jones (R-San Diego), who believes bond debt will only worsen California’s budget crisis. 

Repaying the amount borrowed with interest is likely to cost taxpayers $400 million a year over 40 years, a state legislative analyst said, ultimately costing $16 billion.

It’s not certain voters will accept more debt. Despite California’s liberal reputation, voters tend to be conservative when it comes to bond measures, survey expert Mark Baldassare of the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California recently reported. Even so, 65 percent of likely voters said they would vote yes on Prop. 4 in a survey PPIC released this week.

The Climate Center’s Cohen acknowledged that many don’t like paying more to support government action. “But the bottom line is, our fossil fuel economy has resulted in a climate crisis that I liken to a runaway train,” she said. “We’re all standing on the track, it’s accelerating towards us and we are not doing enough to slow it down.”

She sees Prop. 4 as just one step in the right direction to help California weather the challenges ahead. “The climate crisis is escalating every day, and we have to start taking bold actions,” Cohen said. “And that means bold investments to make a difference for our health and well being and the future of our children.”

The post California Ballot Asks Voters to Invest in Climate Solutions appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

Proposition M would fundamentally change how the city taxes businesses, in order to better align with post-pandemic work norms and strengthen the government’s long-term financial footing. 

The measure would exempt more small businesses from taxes and fees, while reducing taxes on some of the city’s largest companies. 

Listen to a summary of what this ballot measure would do.

What it would do

Proposition M would shift how San Francisco calculates its gross receipts tax paid by businesses. If it passes, San Francisco will rely less on payroll expenses for staff working here, and more on revenue that firms earn within the city. The changes would apply indefinitely, unless repealed.

The measure could affect companies’ behaviors in ways that would help San Francisco’s economy:

1. Their staff might return to the office and work remotely less frequently, because companies would face a lower tax burden for having employees work in San Francisco.
2. Companies might be less likely to leave San Francisco. That’s because, even if they moved their headquarters out of the city, their sales here would still get taxed.

The measure would tend to raise taxes on businesses that had large revenues and small staffs, and that could not easily move operations. One likely example is Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the region’s utility. Industries to see their gross receipts taxes rise would include biotechnology, with an 18% increase; retail trade, at 16%; and construction, at 7%.

Some notable industries would see major savings, such as the category that includes arts, entertainment and recreation businesses, at an 80% average tax reduction; restaurants, bars and other food service businesses would get a 45% reduction; and educational and health care services would see taxes fall by 30%. 

The measure would also more than double the threshold at which companies become subject to the gross receipts tax, from $2.25 million in annual revenue to $5 million. That would eliminate gross receipts taxes for more than 2,700 small businesses.

Proposition M would stall a scheduled tax hike on all businesses — first delayed with the onset of the pandemic and now slated for 2025 — until 2027.

And Proposition M would simplify the tax system, consolidating the city’s 14 business categories into seven, making it easier for companies to pay their taxes. It could also prevent costly legal battles, said a city official who requested anonymity because their department has not endorsed the proposition. In light of today’s complicated tax system, companies are disputing their business categories in court, the source said. 

In addition the measure would increase the rate for the homelessness gross receipts tax, which generates government revenue for housing and services for unhoused people, and apply it to more businesses. Meanwhile, the city would stop charging businesses certain fees, including for occupying sidewalks with tables and chairs.

Support

Proposition M would give critical tax relief to small businesses that are still struggling to recover from the pandemic, said Laurie Thomas, executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, in the official proponent argument for the measure. The tax break could pull some back from the brink of closure, said proponents in the official paid argument for the measure. 

Delaying the 2025 tax hike could also help many neighborhood businesses survive, proponents said. 

The measure would especially help the restaurant industry. Nearly 90% of restaurants, virtually all of them small businesses, would be exempt from the rejiggered tax. Big chain restaurants would likely receive tax increases, Thomas said. 

Many of the city’s tech giants would benefit from Proposition M’s tax breaks, helping the whole business ecosystem, Thomas said. If the lower taxes enticed them to stay in San Francisco, their workers would patronize local restaurants and retailers, possibly helping revive downtown, she said. 

And by exempting businesses from arcane permitting and licensing fees, the measure could save businesses citywide $10 million. Going forward, the city would cover those fees with other revenue sources. That would be almost as big a boon for small businesses as the gross receipts tax exemption, Thomas said. 

Proposition M’s supporters include Mayor London Breed and a majority of the Board of Supervisors, including Aaron Peskin, board president and a mayoral candidate running to unseat Breed. It also has the backing of Assessor-Recorder Joaquín Torres, Masood Samereie of the Council of District Merchants Associations, Rodney Fong of the Chamber of Commerce, Alex Bastian of the Hotel Council, Larry Mazzola Jr. of the Building and Construction Trades Council and Mary Jung of the San Francisco Democratic Party. 

Opposition

Proposition M’s new tax system is forecast to generate more revenue than today’s system through “steep tax hikes” that could “drastically alter the financial future of major companies,” said Larry Marso, a local technology executive and attorney, in the official opposition argument. 

The measure would hurt certain industries, with some larger mid-sized businesses taking a massive hit, Marso said. 

Those companies may still be financially recovering from the pandemic, he said, adding that tax hikes could further hurt them and push them to leave the city, which would harm the local economy. 

Cost

If passed, Proposition M would first lose money for the city, and then earn it back and sustain increased tax revenues. For the first three fiscal years, the measure would reduce revenues by about $40 million annually, according to an analysis by City Controller Greg Wagner. Scheduled rate increases would thereafter earn the city roughly an additional $50 million each year, nullifying the initial deficit by Fiscal Year 2029-2030. 

Campaign finance

As of Oct. 7, the “Yes on M” campaign committee had raised about $1.5 million, according to data from the San Francisco Ethics Commission. Major contributions include $500,000 from Google, $250,000 from Airbnb and $245,000 from the Chamber of Commerce.

No group opposing Proposition M had reported fundraising activity to the city.

History and context

Because San Francisco taxes companies at higher rates the more they spend on payroll, the city leans heavily on a handful of businesses for tax revenue. San Francisco’s five largest companies pay nearly a quarter of its total tax haul, according to a 2023 report by the controller’s office. That’s risky, because the city would lose significant revenue if any of those businesses were to leave. 

Votes needed to pass

Proposition M requires a simple majority of “yes” votes to pass. 

The measure includes a poison pill: Depending on the vote count, it could nullify Proposition L, which would levy a gross receipts tax on ride-hailing and autonomous vehicle companies to fund public transit.

In the event that voters passed both measures:

• If Proposition M got more “yes” votes, only Proposition M would be implemented.
• If Proposition L got more “yes” votes, both measures would be implemented.

Click here to return to our full voter guide.

The post Proposition M — Overhaul SF Business Tax System appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

Proposition E would create a task force to assess San Francisco’s many commissions and public bodies and recommend whether any should be altered or eliminated to improve local governance.

The task force’s powers would be more than advisory for certain types of commissions, which it could directly change or dissolve without approval from lawmakers.

Proposition E is in direct opposition with Proposition D, which would slash the number of city commissions to no more than 65, eliminate their oversight function and give the mayor hiring and firing authority over department heads.

Listen to a summary of what this ballot measure would do.

Support

Board of Supervisors president and mayoral candidate Aaron Peskin wrote Proposition E. The measure is needed to block Proposition D, which “takes a meat ax to our government,” he says in the official proponent argument.

“It eliminates without a cost-benefit analysis essential and effective commissions,” he said. “It removes citizen oversight over police conduct policies such as the use of deadly force … undermining transparency and accountability and creating a breeding ground for abuse and corruption.” 

Four other members of the Board of Supervisors support Proposition E, as does Assemblymember Phil Ting. Some retired politicians are also backing it, like former Mayor Art Agnos, California Sen. Mark Leno and Assemblymember Tom Ammiano. Local and political groups in favor of the measure include the San Francisco Labor Council, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, United Educators of San Francisco and the San Francisco Tenants Union.

Opposition

Proposition E is a “‘poison pill’ to defeat Proposition D, so that nothing meaningful gets done,” says Larry Marso, a technology executive, in the official opponent argument. “San Francisco continues to suffocate in bureaucracy, with over 100 commissions that overlap and waste resources.” 

Other opponents of Proposition E include the San Francisco Democratic Party, TogetherSF Action, RescueSF, Stand with Asian Americans and others.  

What it would do

If passed, Proposition E would first require the Budget & Legislative Analyst, which generally conducts studies to aid lawmakers’ decision-making, to prepare a report on how much public money each of the city’s approximately 130 commissions spends in carrying out its business — and how much money would be saved if each were eliminated or consolidated into other public bodies.

Proposition E would also create a Commission Streamlining Task Force that would have until Feb. 1, 2026, to review the Budget & Legislative Analyst’s report and decide which commissions should change, merge or be eliminated in order to improve and streamline the administration of city government.

The task force could also recommend no changes to city commissions.

Some of the city’s many commissions were created by ballot measures that voters approved; others resulted from conventional legislation, through the Board of Supervisors. To alter, combine or dissolve commissions, the task force would need to engage in the same processes that created them.

That means that if the task force wanted to affect commissions created through ballot measures, its proposed changes would require voter approval.

The task force would have greater power to affect commissions that had been legislated into existence. It could propose any changes via legislation, which would automatically go into effect within 90 days unless a supermajority of the Board of Supervisors intervened.

The five-member task force would consist of:

• The city administrator or their representative;
• The city controller or their representative;
• The city attorney or their representative;
• An appointee of the president of the Board of Supervisors, representing public sector unions;
• An appointee of the mayor with expertise in government transparency and accountability.

Cost

Implementing Proposition E “would have a minimal impact on the cost of government,” according to an analysis by San Francisco Controller Greg Wagner.

Wagner did not provide exact costs, likely because Proposition E’s impacts cannot be known before the task force forms and makes its recommendations. Eliminating commissions would probably save the city money, he said.

The costs associated with the Commission Streamlining Task Force also are unclear. While three of its five members would be full-time city officials or employees, the remaining two might be volunteers. In other public bodies, volunteers can receive stipends and health care benefits.

Campaign finance

As of Oct. 7, a campaign committee opposing Proposition D — and supporting other measures, including Proposition E — had raised $27,404.

Campaign committees opposing Proposition E and supporting Proposition D had raised more than $8.7 million.

Votes needed to pass

Proposition E requires a simple majority of “yes” votes to pass, as does Proposition D. If both measures pass, the one to get more votes will prevail.

Click here to return to our full voter guide.

The post Proposition E — Create Task Force to Consider Culling Commissions appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

Proposition D would halve the number of City Hall commissions and end their oversight of government departments. The mayor would gain greater power to appoint commissioners, and full control over hiring and firing department heads. 

Proposition D would dramatically alter governance in San Francisco. It would remake rules, approved by voters nearly 30 years ago, about the mayor and lawmakers’ shared control over who sits on public bodies.

Listen to a summary of what this ballot measure would do.

Support

By transferring power from commissioners to elected politicians, Proposition D would make government more directly accountable to voters, according to TogetherSF Action, the political advocacy group that sponsored the measure and is funded by billionaire venture capitalist Michael Moritz, who also owns The San Francisco Standard news outlet. Proposition D’s many mandates would also make government more efficient, said Kanishka Cheng, chief executive officer of TogetherSF Action.

The “redundant, wasteful, and ineffective” commission system is a major reason that local government has “failed to solve the challenges San Francisco faces,” Cheng says in the official proponent argument for the measure. Despite there being five commissions related to homelessness and six related to public health, the city’s homelessness and fentanyl crises have persisted, she says.

The San Francisco Democratic Party, one of the city’s most powerful political groups, also backs Proposition D — a move that brings funding for political ads, mailers and volunteers. The endorsement comes after party leadership shifted in March away from the political left and toward the center. Other supporters include local groups RescueSF, Stand with Asian Americans, Stop Crime SF Action, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association and San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.  

Supporters have heavily funded the campaign.

Opposition

The measure’s main opponent is Aaron Peskin, president of the Board of Supervisors and a mayoral candidate. Proposition D would disband more than 20 voter-approved commissions, “undermining key services” and drawing the governance process out of the public’s view and “back behind closed doors,” he says in his official opposition argument. 

“Prop D will only lead to more corruption by taking away checks and balances, transparency, and civic engagement,” Peskin said in a September press release. 

Other opponents include the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, United Educators of San Francisco, San Francisco Labor Council, Small Business Forward and the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods.

Peskin is sponsoring Proposition E, a competing measure that would create a task force to consider changes to the city’s commission system.

Measure would slash commissions

San Francisco City Hall has about 130 commissions and similar government bodies.

If voters pass Proposition D, it will schedule the vast majority of commissions for automatic elimination, though the Board of Supervisors could intervene to retain some of them.

The measure would initially preserve the 20 commissions that oversee major city functions, such as the Police Commission, Fire Commission and Public Utilities Commission. Within nine months of the measure’s passage, a task force would make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors about other commissions to keep as well. The board would have until spring 2026 to save or restructure up to 45 commissions, to preserve a total of 65, at which point any others would dissolve.

Budget savings

Some of the city’s roughly 1,200 commissioners receive stipends — the rest are unpaid volunteers — and all commissioners are offered access to health insurance through the city.

Proposition D would eliminate stipends and health coverage. That would save the city between $350,000 and $630,000 annually. These changes might affect who could afford to serve on commissions.

The city would no longer pay for support staff for dissolved commissions.

Executive power would increase

Proposition D would give the mayor greater control over commission makeup. Currently, the mayor appoints most commissioners; the Board of Supervisors appoints the rest and may reject the mayor’s picks. Under Proposition D, the mayor would appoint two-thirds of commissioners and the board could not reject them.

The mayor would also gain control over who runs city departments.

Today, when appointing department heads, the mayor chooses from among candidates whom commissions recommend. And often, the mayor may remove appointees only following their misconduct and with commission approval. Proposition D would strip the commissions of those powers and let the mayor hire and fire department heads at will; the commissions could only advise on those decisions.

Measure D would remove the Police Commission’s authority to make rules about officer conduct, and give that power to the police chief. The commission would still discipline officers.

Campaign finance

Proposition D is drawing more financial backing, by far, than any other local ballot measure, according to data from the San Francisco Ethics Commission.

As of Oct. 7, campaign committees supporting Proposition D had raised more than $8.7 million. The next-greatest financial support was for Proposition M, which would overhaul the city’s business tax system; that committee had raised nearly $1.5 million.

Of Proposition D backers’ war chest, about $2.4 million had come from the “Mayor Mark Farrell for Yes on Prop D” campaign committee.

Mayor London Breed — who is running to keep her seat against Farrell and many other candidates — supported Proposition D but withdrew her backing in September because it had become “tainted” by Farrell’s campaign committee, she said.

By a quirk of local election laws, committees for or against ballot measures may receive financial donations of any amount — unlike Farrell’s mayoral campaign committee, for which individual donations may not surpass $500. Breed said Farrell was using Proposition D to “funnel unlimited amounts” into his bid for mayor. 

Cheng, of Proposition D sponsor TogetherSF Action, called Breed’s move a political calculation. The group backs Farrell for mayor.

A campaign committee opposing Proposition D and supporting other measures, including Proposition E, had raised $27,404.

Votes needed to pass

Proposition D requires a simple majority of “yes” votes to pass, as does Proposition E. If both measures pass, the one receiving more votes will prevail.

Click here to return to our full voter guide.

The post Proposition D — Eliminate City Commissions, Empower Mayor appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

The unrelenting abuse by her husband continued for months even after the San Francisco mother succeeded in getting a restraining order against him. In 2020, she told police that he had started using remote technology that was connected to the car apps of their 2016 Tesla Model X family car to terrorize her.

She alleged that she would often return to her vehicle, only to find the doors open or locked, or the heat turned on, or the horn honking, or the vehicle’s ability to charge turned off.

“He had the resources to run an all-round torture campaign against me,” the woman told this reporter in a telephone interview.

Cases of the kind of technology-enabled stalking and other forms of harassment Kailey (she did not want her real name used because of ongoing litigation) experienced are on the rise as automakers are adding more and more sophisticated features into their vehicles and turning cars that were once considered sanctuaries by their owners into “computers on wheels,” said Robert Harrell, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California. Some call them smart phones with wheels.

But that could soon change, and vehicles could once again become safe havens for their owners if California Governor Gavin Newsom signs the Access to Connected Vehicle Service bill authored by Sen. Dave Min, D-Irvine. The bill sailed through the legislature last month. Newsom has until the end of this month to sign it.

SB 1394 was jointly co-authored by Assemblymember Akilah Weber, D-La Mesa and Sen. Angelique Ashby, D-Sacramento. It would establish a legal process for the rapid termination of a domestic abuser’s access to app-connected remote and GPS-based vehicle technology.

“Abuse of these apps can be very threatening and traumatizing to survivors,” Min said in a telephone interview earlier this week. If enacted, California would be the first state in the nation to have such a bill.

A ‘lifeline’ for DV survivors

Multiple women’s rights advocates who supported the bill say a car is a lifeline to survivors. Having safety and privacy that a car can provide is “crucial to my clients,” said Prof. Jane Stoever, director of the UC Irvine Law Domestic Violence Clinic, and a co-sponsor of Min’s bill.

Smart phone apps allow owners to check a car’s location if they forget where they parked it or to lock or unlock it remotely. The car owner can grant access to a limited number of other drivers.

Drafted with input from a number of survivors, women’s rights advocates and some car manufacturers themselves, Min said he hoped SB 1394 would address domestic violence abusers exploiting in-car location tracking to harass and intimidate survivors.

“In this rapidly growing digital age, bills like SB 1394 are a step in the right direction,” noted Shobha Hiatt, a co-founder of Narika, a Bay Area-based support group for South Asian survivors of domestic violence. “More states should follow suit.”

A woman in Southern California discovered an Apple AirTag plugged under her dash by her abusive husband that allowed him to track her movements in real time. When she asked him about it, he dismissively said, “Oh, you found it. I’ve been looking for it.” The couple is now in the midst of custody arrangements for their three young sons.

Kailey sued her husband in State Superior Court in 2020, claiming sexual battery and assault. She included Tesla as a defendant, accusing the carmaker of negligence for continuing to provide the husband access to the car even though she had a restraining order against him.

She began her requests to Tesla to end access in 2018, a year after the police began investigating her complaints. The carmaker told her that as long as her husband’s name remained on the vehicle’s title as co-owner, they couldn’t deny him access.

Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow sided with Tesla that the woman had no proof “other than her belief and imagination” that her husband had used the car’s technology to stalk and harass her, according to court transcripts. Both husband and wife had “a right” to use the car technology, he wrote. At their request, both Kailey and her husband have been identified only by their initials in court documents.

In the early part of the police investigation, Tesla had told police that the remote access logs they were asking for were only available within seven days of the events recorded, according to the lawsuit.

Kailey lost the case and has relocated out of California, she said. The couple decided to sell their car. Their divorce and custody issues are pending.

Tesla did not respond to a request for comment by press time.

AAI concerned about potential for harm

Other automakers offer similar tracking and remote access features, although some of them have taken steps to prevent the misuse of data their vehicles track.

In a May 23 letter to the Federal Communications Commission, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (AAI), a technology-focused trade group for automakers and suppliers that represents 98% of car and light trucks sold in the United States, stressed that it was concerned about the potential for abuse of connected vehicle services to stalk or harass domestic violence survivors. Disclosing location-tracking data to an abuser could “create a potential for significant harm,” the AAI wrote.

Min’s bill would address many of those concerns. It would require carmakers to disable an abuser’s access to connected vehicle services within two business days of receiving a request from a survivor. Documentation, such as proof of legal possession of the vehicle, or a domestic violence restraining order that awards vehicular possession would be enough to sever digital access with their abuser even if they hold a joint title, according to a press release from Min’s office.

Kailey said she was happy that the bill had made it to the governor’s desk because survivors like herself should not have to go through what she did.

“The reason I bought that car was because I thought it was safe,” she said.

The post Domestic Violence Abusers May No Longer Be Able to Track Their Partners With Their Apps appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

Responding to requests can be time consuming, expensive and legally risky, said award-winning journalist Miranda Spivack, author of the forthcoming book, “Backroom Deals in Our Backyards: How Government Secrecy Harms Our Communities and the Local Heroes Fighting Back.”

And, she added, sometimes the people with the information simply don’t know what the law requires them to disclose.

Spivack shared her thoughts in a recent interview with Lila LaHood, executive director of the San Francisco Public Press, at an event where they discussed government transparency. This excerpt from their conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

In this episode of “Civic Presnts,” hear LaHood’s full interview with Miranda Spivack at a July 11 event that featured a question-and-answer session with the audience.

You have said that there is evidence that points to secrecy in state and local government being on the rise. How do we know this, and what explains this increase?

Starting with 9/11 (the 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S.), there was a big retrenchment in government transparency at the local level. 

From that time on, there is a lot of evidence that governments are just not living up to state public records laws. It’s inconvenient. It’s costly. It’s everything from they don’t know where the information is, to they haven’t digitized their records. 

When a state or local agency says it doesn’t have or doesn’t want to give up information, what are the most common reasons you hear?

There are a couple I think are occurring with greater frequency. One of them is the use of the “trade secrets exemption,” which is all over the country. It’s in the federal FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) law, too, and allows private contractors to say “that’s a proprietary piece of information,” that our competitors are going to be tipped off on. 

There are sometimes security and privacy issues. The “investigative exemption” is used a lot, where a government agency will say, “this is still under investigation.” But, of course, investigations do not go on for five years, and documents that are older should be available. But they want to charge you a lot of money for this stuff. And that’s a big deterrent.

Watch the full interview and audience questions.

Can you point to any places where the system for getting access to public records works really well? Conversely, where have you run into the most obstacles? 

It’s very erratic, even within a state. You can have government employees who really do want to be helpful. I think places that have digitized their documents have a better chance of putting the information up online. You shouldn’t have to file a public records request just to find out who the contractors are in San Francisco to cross check them with public finance and campaign finance reports.

How does our government’s ability to keep and record large quantities of information affect its willingness to provide access to that information? 

Around the country, and probably within California, smaller governments are not well funded. Legislatures don’t necessarily fund their own state agencies very well. So, you know, there is a bona fide issue that I have to acknowledge, which is that this is not an inexpensive process — although it should be, given that we have all this technology. 

I’ll tell you that the email searches are very hard. They don’t know who’s got the emails. They don’t know where it is. Is it on the main server? Is it on somebody’s laptop? Those are really hard issues.

Should governments retain all their digital files forever? Or might it make sense to clear certain things out after a certain period of time?

Probably five years is a good measure for most records. I think law enforcement records have to be kept much longer. A lot of it has to do with who has the server. Does the city own the server? Is it outsourced to some private contractor? What are they charging for it? I think those are all real considerations. 

What do you think motivates people to withhold information? 

So, there is a fellow I know in Washington, Tom Susman, who actually helped write the amendments to the Freedom of Information Act in the 1970s. He says the mindset is, “when in doubt, don’t give it out.”

In some states, you can be sued as a government employee if you give out information that you shouldn’t give out. There’s a big fear factor.

If you look at police agencies, the culture is, “We’re a paramilitary organization, and that means you cannot have the insight into what we’re doing.”

Your book is about people who were trying to improve their communities and, in the process, took on governments that were withholding public information. How did you decide which stories to include in the book?

The book has five profiles of different people from around the country whom I’m calling accidental activists. They don’t get into this because they want to. They really get into this because they have to. 

These stories just spoke to me. As a journalist, it’s hard to do this work, and so I was very interested to see how novices would go about doing this. Their success and failures were really instructive, because I think state and local government is really where people’s lives are most clearly affected.

One of the stories is about poisoned drinking water. Another is toxic chemicals in firefighter gear. There’s a story about dangerous roads. 

Can you explain in a nutshell why government agencies wouldn’t want people to know which roads were the most dangerous?

Well, you’re being logical. Congress passed a law a couple of decades ago in response to state governments who were worried that they would get sued if they had a list of the top 10 worst roads in their state that they wanted to apply for federal funds for. So, they know where the problems are, but they’re not fixing them and they were very worried that they would get sued for negligence. 

Can you talk a little bit about why civic engagement matters on the local level, especially in this era of hyperpolarization? 

One of the biggest problems is that people don’t trust the government. They think the government is hiding stuff. Governments, I think state and local in particular, can do a lot to be more open about what their process is, what they’re doing, who they’re working with, who the mayor is meeting with. What’s the harm in that? 

And yet, there’s this sort of a defensive crouch. I think in a lot of governments, there’s a lot of fear. There are issues that I think are legitimate where politicians really feel that they are being hounded unnecessarily. I think the press has to be careful about what you go after and what you make a big issue about. But there’s really a nexus between transparency and government and civic engagement, and keeping our democratic system “small d” democratic.

Wondering which state governments are the most responsive to records requests? Check out this interactive tool by MuckRock, a news site focused on government transparency and accountability.

This article is part of U.S. Democracy Day, a nationwide collaborative on Sept. 15, the International Day of Democracy, in which news organizations cover how democracy works and the threats it faces. To learn more, visit usdemocracyday.org.

The post Why Do Governments Keep Information From the Public? A Veteran Journalist Weighs In appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

一位三藩市的民選官員正面臨越來越多來自選民及當地團體的批評。主因是他支持一項投票提案，永久禁止車輛通行海洋公路（Great Highway，又稱海旁公路，大公路），並將其改造為海濱公園。

代表日落區的第四區市參事殷嘉立（Joel Engardio）聯合其他四位民選官員共同提出這項提案。這一舉措令許多居民措手不及。他們表示，殷嘉立在提出這項提案之前應該先諮詢民眾的意見，而現在這項提案已經引起了社區的分歧。民眾的不滿令更多人去促使市參事們修改提案，或將此提案從 11 月的投票中撤回。

有些人發誓下次有機會，不會投票給殷嘉立。

「我不再認為他是我的市參事了，」住在海洋公路附近的Patricia Arack說道。Arack領導著Concerned Residents of the Sunset這一團體，該團體於2020年成立，反對當時實行的關閉道路的措施。她在該區上次選舉中支持殷嘉立，只因她寄希望於殷嘉立會維持道路的現狀 —— 目前，這條公路在工作日允許車輛通行，而週末禁止車輛通行，以便人們可以在這裡步行和騎自行車。

三藩市公共新聞報（San Francisco Public Press）就他是否曾提前告知他的選民與當地社區與政治組織他有打算提交議案這一事，對殷嘉立進行提問。

殷嘉立沒有直接回答本報的問題。而相對的，他說「自去年以來，我在各種市民大會或團體的聚會中曾多次在被問到此路時，都有泛泛地提過海洋公路的未來」。他補充，「我有談過關於打造一個海濱公園的願景。」

「我應該更好地向選民解釋將此議題納入公投這件事，這會給予反對建公園的人一個用選票反對的機會，」他接著說。

但根據本報對殷嘉立所在選區的選民和社區團體的走訪，他會將此議題放進11月公投的意圖，並未傳達到他所代表的選區裡。

許多住在城市西邊的市民說他們擔心，在未能了解此事對當地的影響的情況，譬如更多車流分流到居民區以及19街和日落大道（Sunset Boulevard），遍佈全市的選民們會通過這一提案。

提案缺乏公眾外展

目前，兩個主要由華人成員組成的組織已經站出來公開反對此提案：三藩市華裔民主黨協進會（Chinese American Democratic Club）於上週投票反對，同時在社交媒體X中表明立場；而舊金山日落區商戶聯會，即是舊金山華埠商戶聯會（Chinatown Merchants United Association of San Francisco）的日落區分會則在六月公開反對，他們的總部隨即在7月1日投票反對。

來自這兩個組織的代表都表示殷嘉立並沒有在公開支持此提案之前咨詢他們的意見。華裔民主黨協進會的主席招霞對此表示憤怒。

長城五金店的老闆周紹鋆（Albert Chow）是代表當地商家同市民的社區組織 People of Parkside Sunset（POPS）的主席。他亦對殷嘉立未能征求他的意見表示沮喪和困惑。

許多在殷嘉立所在選區內的市民亦有同樣感受。

「他沒有同他選區裡大量反對此事的人講過一句話，」Arack在就此議題談到，「他就徑直去做了。」

同Arack一樣，王运（Wendy Wong）在上次市參事選舉中投票給了殷嘉立，但她說她計劃下次現任市參事面臨挑戰時，她將會把選票投給別人。

「通常情況下，他會同社群接觸，傾聽社群的想法，但是這次他並沒有做到，」王运在提到這次的投票提案時說道。

朱偉（Selena Chu）亦曾是殷嘉立的支持者。她說當地的華人群體為選出「合適的人選」付出了巨大的努力，她們曾經認為這個人選會是殷嘉立 —— 但現在他們發現殷嘉立並沒有聽取他們的意見。

海洋公路事件導致「鄰里對立」

據三藩市康樂及公園部門（San Francisco Recreation and Park Department）稱，自疫情期間它被關閉以來，這條高速公路一直是一個受歡迎的公園目的地。從2020 年4 月開始，已有數以百萬計的遊客參觀此處，每場重大活動平均下來吸引了超過十萬人。支持永久關閉此路車輛通行的人表示，這一變化將提升行人過街的安全。它還可以為行動不便，被海岸風沙滋擾的人，特別是老年人或坐輪椅的人，在海岸線沿岸創建一條替代道路。

在他六月份發表的一篇博客文章中，殷嘉立阐述了将海洋公路改造成公园所带来的潜在经济和其他利益，以及在車道轉為公園後，如何改變车辆交通以適應新的模式。

「疫情期間的兩年來，這個公園已經過了考驗，」一名在離海洋公路不遠開藝術館的藝術家Anne Marguerite Herbst說道，「這讓我們知道它是可以成功的，同時我們也知道有多少人從城市的各個地區過來這邊使用海灘，使用公園，騎自行車，等等。我們如同活在夢境裡一樣。」

她曾在最近的第四區市參事選舉中投票給了當時在任市參事馬兆明。但她說，當殷嘉立今年與其他市參事共同發起關閉此高速公路的投票提案時，她來了個「360 度」大轉彎，她現在計劃投票給他。

Herbst是其中一名對這件事的某一方充滿熱誠的人，然而這兩方中經常發生爭執。

「這件事闡釋了很大的分歧，」前租戶權益倡議者Alyse Ceirante說道。她同樣住在離海洋公路距離幾個街區的地方有38年之久。她是開放海旁公路（Open the Great Highway）組織的一員，一個反對該高速被關閉的組織。「這造成了鄰里間的對立。」

在收到她稱之為「辱罵性」的回帖後，Ceirante不再使用在鄰里間使用的社交媒體Nextdoor發帖了。

同樣住在日落區的局面Stephen Gorski表示，在接受了CBS新聞的採訪，表示了他反對的立場後，他收到了一通帶有威脅性質的電話。

民眾現在正在「為此事爭執不休，」周紹鋆說。他稱這個提案對社群的安寧是「具有危險性的。」

在周紹鋆上週組織的一個社區活動中，殷嘉立與People of Parkside Sunset（POPS）成員坐下來，傾聽了他們對此提案的不同意見。

當晚，周紹鋆就此事與殷嘉立對峙。

周紹鋆問他，過去這幾年，「我們討論多各種各樣，讓日落區變得更好的事情。為什麼偏偏在這件事上，你要向我們隱瞞呢？」

「我很抱歉我們沒有提前通知你，」殷嘉立答到，「但多年來這件事一直是社區的熱門話題。」他向周紹鋆以及他人說，通過將其列入公投，他想讓選民能決定這條公路的未來。否則， 殷嘉立補充，市參事會很有可能在目前道路多樣使用的模式結束之後，立法關閉這條道路。

群眾施壓撤回提案

市參事們在6月18日將此投票提案上交，當天亦是在能以收集市參事們簽名的方式提交投票提案的最後期限。周紹鋆提到，這讓西區的居民幾乎沒有時間組織和制定一個與其競爭的提案。

這就是為什麼他試圖說服殷嘉立改變他發起的提案，或將其從 11 月的投票中撤回。修改或撤銷提案的截止日期分別為7月26日和7月30日。

來自Concerned Residents of the Sunset組織的Arack也在促使市參事取消該提案。在她本周三於Richmond Review/Sunset Beacon裡發表的一封致編輯的信中，她呼籲保留此公路的多樣使用模式。

「現在是時候去將這項有缺陷的提案從11月公投的選票中撤回了，」她說，「同時計劃一個能包容所有利益相關者的訴求的折中方案。

如需聯繫本文作者吳哲，請發郵箱至zhe@sfpublicpress.org。

編輯註：2024 年 7 月 17 日，本文更新了有關海洋公路混合使用模式中，它作為公園時的影響的相關信息，以及將其完全改造成公園的潛在好處。 7 月 18 日，本文再次進行了更新，加入了市參事殷嘉立 6 月發表的博客文章，進一步解釋了這項更新迭代將如何進行。

The post 三藩民選官員遭反對，因其提案關閉海洋公路 appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

A San Francisco lawmaker is facing increasing criticism from his constituents and some local groups for supporting a ballot measure to permanently close the Great Highway to car traffic and turn it into a park. 

District 4 Supervisor Joel Engardio, who represents the Sunset District, caught many residents off guard when he co-sponsored the proposition. They said he should have consulted them before backing the measure, which has caused divisions in the community. Some people have urged the supervisors to change or withdraw it from the November ballot.

And some vowed to vote against Engardio at the next opportunity.

“I don’t consider him my supervisor anymore,” said Patricia Arack, who lives near the Great Highway and leads the group Concerned Residents of the Sunset, founded in 2020 in objection to the artery’s closure at the time. She supported Engardio in the district’s previous election, expecting that he would maintain the status quo — the thoroughfare hosts cars during the week and closes to cars on weekends so that people can walk and bike along it.

The Great Highway’s hybrid use is slated to cease at the end of 2025. The ballot measure, which Engardio sponsored alongside four other supervisors and Mayor London Breed, would discontinue the hybrid use ahead of schedule. 

The San Francisco Public Press asked Engardio if he ever told his constituents and his district’s various community and political groups about his intent to co-sponsor the ballot measure.

He did not directly answer that question. Instead, he had “generally talked about the future of the Great Highway when asked about it at various town hall meetings or other group settings since last year,” he said. “I’ve talked about the vision for an oceanside park.”

“I should have done a better job explaining to constituents that putting this on the ballot gives people who oppose the park a chance to vote against it,” he added. 

But messages about his intent to put his name on the ballot measure did not reach many in the neighborhoods he represents, based on the Public Press’ interviews with those people and groups in recent weeks. 

Many westside residents said they were concerned that citywide voters would approve the measure without understanding the local impacts that they feared it would have, like worsening traffic in residential areas and on 19th Avenue and Sunset Boulevard.

Lack of public outreach 

So far, two prominent organizations with predominantly Chinese American members have come out against the ballot measure: The Chinese American Democratic Club voted to oppose it last week, and announced their position Tuesday on social media platform X; and the Sunset branch of the Chinatown Merchants United Association of San Francisco opposed it in June, with the full association following suit July 1.  

Representatives from both groups said Engardio had not consulted them in the lead-up to publicly supporting the measure, with the Democratic Club’s leader, Josephine Zhao, expressing anger about it. 

Albert Chow, owner of Great Wall Hardware and president of People of Parkside Sunset, a neighborhood group with merchant and resident members, also said he was frustrated and bewildered that Engardio did not consult him.

Many of the supervisor’s constituents had similar feelings. 

“He did not say one word to a very significant number of people in his own district who are against it,” Arack said, referring to the ballot measure. “He just did it.”

Like Arack, Wendy Wong voted for Engardio in the last election but said she now plans to vote for someone else next time around if the incumbent has competition. 

“Usually, he will reach out to the community and want to hear from the community, but then he did not do that part” when it came to the ballot measure, Wong said. 

Selena Chu, who used to support the supervisor, said the local Chinese community went the extra mile by campaigning to get the “right person in office,” and Engardio seemed like that person — but now it appears that he is not listening to them.

Great Highway issue ‘pitting neighbor against neighbor’

The highway has been a popular destination as a park since its closure during the pandemic, with millions of visitors since April 2020 and major events that have each drawn an average of more than 10,000 people, according to the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department. Proponents of the permanent closure say it would increase safety for pedestrians. And it would create an alternative path along the coastline for people with limited mobility who might struggle with sand, like seniors or those in wheelchairs.

In a June blog post, Engardio explained the potential economic and other benefits of transforming the Great Highway into a park, and how vehicle traffic might shift to accommodate it.

“For two years, the park was tested during COVID,” said Anne Marguerite Herbst, who runs an art gallery near the Great Highway. “This is how we know what a success it is, and how many people from other areas of the city came out to use the beach, to use the park, to ride their bikes, whatever. We’ve lived this dream.” 

She had voted for then-incumbent Gordon Mar in the most recent election for District 4 supervisor. But when Engardio co-sponsored the ballot measure this year to close the highway, she made a “360 degree” turn, she said, and now plans to vote for him.

She is one of the many passionate people on either side of the issue, who are often at odds.

“This has been so divisive,” said Alyse Ceirante, a former tenant advocate who has lived blocks away from the Great Highway for 38 years. She is a member of Open the Great Highway, a group that opposes the street’s closure. “This is pitting neighbor against neighbor.” 

Ceirante stopped posting about the issue on neighborhood social media platform Nextdoor after users sent her responses that she called “abusive.”

Sunset resident Stephen Gorski received a threatening call after voicing his opposition to the measure in an interview on CBS news, he said. 

People are “really at each other’s throat on this issue,” Chow said. He called it “dangerous” to the community’s harmony. 

At a neighborhood event that Chow hosted last week, Engardio sat down with People of Parkside Sunset members and heard their opinions, which were mixed, on the ballot measure. 

That night, Chow confronted Engardio. 

Chow told him that, in the past, “We talked about all kinds of things to make Sunset better. Why was this the one thing that you just hid it from us?”

“I’m sorry I didn’t give you a heads up,” Engardio replied, “but it’s been a topic front and center for years.” He explained to Chow and others that by putting it on the ballot, he wanted to give voters control over the Great Highway’s future. Otherwise, supervisors would probably legislate its closure after its hybrid-use mandate expired, he said.

Pressure to withdraw measure

The supervisors put the measure on the ballot on June 18, their last possible day to do so. That left westside residents little time to organize and create a competing measure, Chow said.

That’s why he is trying to persuade Engardio to alter the measure he co-sponsored or remove it from the November ballot. The deadlines to amend or withdraw it are July 26 and July 30, respectively. 

Arack, of Concerned Residents of the Sunset, is also pushing for the measure’s removal. In a Letter to the Editor, published Wednesday in the Richmond Review/Sunset Beacon, she called for retaining the Great Highway’s hybrid use.

“Now is the time to withdraw this flawed initiative from the ballot,” she said, “and plan for the inclusion of all stakeholders in a decision that is a compromise.”

Editor’s note: On July 17, 2024, this story was updated with information about the popularity of the Great Highway’s hybrid use as a park, as well as potential benefits if it were fully converted to a park. On July 18, it was updated with a reference to Supervisor Joel Engardio’s June blog post further explaining how that conversion could work.

Also, this article is part of U.S. Democracy Day, a nationwide collaborative on Sept. 15, the International Day of Democracy, in which news organizations cover how democracy works and the threats it faces. To learn more, visit usdemocracyday.org.

The post SF Lawmaker Faces Growing Backlash for Supporting Great Highway Closure appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

That’s the focus of our July 11 event, “What You Don’t Know About Local Government Can Hurt You.” San Francisco Public Press Executive Director Lila LaHood will discuss government secrecy with Miranda Spivack, an expert on the topic and longtime investigative reporter and editor, formerly of The Washington Post.

Join us for this eye-opening conversation! Buy tickets here.

Ticket prices:

• $10 to $35 sliding scale for the main event at 6 p.m.
• $250 for pre-event fundraiser reception at 5 p.m.

No one will be turned away from the main event for lack of funds. If you’d like to come, but expect to have trouble paying, email us at community@sfpublicpress for a sponsored ticket.

Spivack is the author of the forthcoming book, “Backroom Deals in Our Backyards: How Government Secrecy Harms our Communities — and the Local Heroes Fighting Back,” scheduled to be published in 2025 by New Press.

During and after her 20 years at The Washington Post, Spivack specialized in stories about how government accountability and transparency fall short. Her reporting led to changes in the way that some jurisdictions worked with real estate developers and government contractors. She continues to write about development trends for The New York Times.

Her series “State Secrets,” for Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting, was honored with the Sunshine Award from the Society of Professional Journalists.

The post Join Us to Learn How Government Secrecy Can Hurt You appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

For Supervisor Connie Chan, who announced her proposal at a Tuesday press conference and represents District 1, which includes the Richmond District, the cuts would reduce her annual salary by $16,819, to $151,355. 

With mounting deficits, the Board of Supervisors will be asking departments to do more with less, she said. Through her proposal, city leaders would set an example and demonstrate how severe the situation is.

“The message today is that business cannot go on as usual,” Chan said. She warned that, in the long run, the city must reduce its rate of spending commensurate with revenue. Chan, who chairs the city’s Budget and Appropriations Committee, said supervisors will soon “be forced to make some draconian cuts to city staffing, city services and community services.” 

The proposal would set aside the money, totaling an estimated $1.5 million, for a reserve fund that could be used to help protect some essential services, which could be pared back if lawmakers approve a budget plan by Mayor London Breed.

At least at first, the fund would be much too small to fully address the budget’s critical condition — the city faces a nearly $790 million shortfall over the next two fiscal years. Chan said she intends to soon announce other ways to fill the reserve fund.

City Hall has faced increasing budget shortfalls since the COVID-19 pandemic, which hobbled the downtown office real estate market, disrupting a major source of tax revenue. Local officials and media outlets have long warned that dwindling public coffers would cause a reduction in city services. Some supervisors and local social service providers have bristled at Breed’s budget plan, saying that it endangers essential services intended to help low-income renters and increase public safety, among other things.

The post SF Lawmaker Pitches Pay Cuts for Top Officials to Ease Budget Woes appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.