Brad and I are in New York, visiting friends, working, speaking at conferences and going to a wedding. Last night, we went with a group of his college friends to karaoke. I'd never done it before. Addictive! I think I peaked with my solo rendition of It Takes Two.
Jennifer | 7:54 AM
| Today we had a Markle Foundation Task Force Presentation on "Creating a Trusted Network for Homeland Security". Essentially, they want to build a computer architecture for sharing information across local, state, and federal law enforcement and foreign intelligence. They demo'ed an application that the FBI would use to communicate between field agents in different offices, and up and down the ladder of authority, using a scenario of informants reporting information related to a possible bioterrorist attack.
As presented, this is pretty difficult to get worked up about, either as a civil liberties issue, or as something that the Markle Foundation needs to spend its charitable dollars on. Regarding civil liberties, everyone thinks that the FBI should use the information it has more efficiently and that local and state authorities are valuable in law enforcement and prevention efforts. There are serious questions about information sharing between foreign intelligence services and domestic law enforcement. As many people know, the 1975-76 Church Committee hearings documented extraordinary federal government abuses of surveillance powers, including the NSA's Operation Shamrock and Operation Minaret, CIA's Operation CHAOS, the FBI's COINTELPRO domestic harassment of dissenters and anti-war protesters that included illegal wiretapping. Congress reacted by establishing different standards for surveillance for domestic and foreign intelligence purposes and by preventing end runs around the higher domestic standards by limiting information sharing. See also: ATTORNEY GENERAL'S GUIDELINES FOR INFORMATION SHARING; EPIC's Resources on Foreign Intelligence and Domestic law enforcement info sharing.
But other than that, the technology looks very useful.
Which is why I wonder why the private sector hasn't approached the FBI to sell them something like this? Clearly, there's a lot of money to be made from a big client like the Federal Government. And a lot of businesses would want to use a similar service as well. Why does the Government need the Markle Foundation to point out something like this to them?
It certainly isn't because, as demonstrated to us, the system is any more privacy-friendly than a system that would be developed by a business. The only indication of any privacy protections encoded into the system is that video and IM chats conducted through the system are logged, as, I imagine, emails and searches are.
While logging enables you to go back and see what was done during the investigation, e.g. were improper searches made, it's also a privacy problem, because then you have all those chats and searches about Richard Jewell or Steven Hatfill lying around. These remain in the system as evidence of suspiciousness, even if the suspect is later cleared. Worse, if, as the demo showed, the software will aggregate field officers interests to determine what people or threats deserve additional attention, sort of a worry aggregator, then we're in danger of a self-reinforcing feedback loop making more Jewells or Hatfills than we would otherwise have.
This then raises more questions than it answers. First and foremost is how comfortable we should be with a technology that makes it easier and cheaper to investigate more people, without additional limitations, either in the form of policy, or better, in the form of technological constraints that enforce a privacy-friendly policy.
Second, the technology doesn't distinguish between the types information that might go into the system. Its one thing to make a giant distributed database of informant leads, and another to add in all the other transactional data on innocent citizens that private companies collect and are selling or giving to the government, like shopping records, educational records, flight patterns, credit histories and the like. Will this information go in the database, and if it does, will we treat it differently depending on the situation, sensitivity of the information, etc. The program doesn't appear to touch this issue.
Third, what do we use this information for? The Task Force assured us that the program was built to enable information sharing about existing suspects (subject based queries, in Jeff Jonas' words), not to do some kind of terrorist profiling (pattern based queries). This would be good if it were true, since I think its near impossible to create an accurate terrorist profile from the small sample that we have (false negatives), and the risk of false positives is huge. But an effective system could easily be used for profiling, and there's no safeguards built in to monitor or prevent that.
Some members of the task force seemed to be saying that this was not a political debate, and that policy would guide the use of the technology. But our relationship with technology is old enough that we should know better than that. In the 1960's Jacques Ellul identified a "technological imperative" and his insights haunted me throughout the nuclear Reagan years. In an era where Code is Law, policy constraints are weak against an unfettered, unlimited technology: just look at copyright law and peer-to-peer. Once we make policy choices about information sharing, privacy and civil liberties, the technologies we build and adopt must promote, not undermine, those choices. I fear an information aggregation technology with no constraints other than a paper trail.
Jennifer | 4:13 PM
| I don't think that the S*NRC is going to put the audio or video up, but if they do, I'll post it here and on the CIS blog.
Jennifer | 6:54 PM
| I'm off to speak at a panel on the law of wireless open access points for the Stanford Networking Research Center.
S*NRC Special Seminar
�Open Access or Legal Trespass? - Rights Clashes Regarding Wireless Network Hotspots�
March 18, 2004, 3:15 p.m. - 5:15 pm
(Reception to follow)
David Packard Electrical Engineering Bldg.
Packard Auditorium
Stanford University
If there's audio, I'll post it.
Jennifer | 2:16 PM
| Daniel Gervais says that social norms empowered by technology are stronger than legal regulation. What happens when technology, supported by legal regulations results in a regime contrary to social norms, e.g. the DMCA means we can't buy third party toner cartridges or garage door openers?
Jennifer | 2:13 PM
| The second panel deals with ways that we could improve the current interaction between law-privacy-security.
Lance Hoffman thinks that we're moving towards a database megadata "fishbowl" society. His response is a technological privacy oversight mechanism that watches the watchers, encrypts data, etc. in accordance with policy choices about when what information should be able to be accessed by who. On a similar theme, see Steve Mann on sousveillance.
Forgetting: At what point should criminal records, unwise website posts, bad reputations be erased, and we be allowed to move beyond who we were in the past? The fishbowl society/internet archive never forgets.
Jennifer | 10:55 AM
| I'm at our CIS conference on security and privacy today (and tomorrow). What follows is random thoughts and comments provoked by the presentations. For a more thorough blog of the conference, click here.
The morning panel is discussing whether and how to apply tort liability to promote security. Solove's insight is that its human error that leads to insecurity, and that we should be smarter about using readily obtainable identifiers like SSN as ID and passwords, making identity theft a lot easier to pull off. The panelists agree that negligence liability should be imposed on software vendors, but are assuming that such liability won't overly deter innovation and that it will be possible to set an efficient standard of care. A gentleman from Microsoft suggested that its the people who write viruses who should be targeted, not the software companies. Froomkin suggests that there's a benefit of imposing liability on the end users who purchase the crappy software in the first place, and then and won't patch.
Clearly, there should be some liability for insecure software, if only because the software companies are in the best position to do something about insecurity. But we're unlikely to get there, with EULAs, UCITA and USAPA-type laws that enable vendors to escape legal responsibility for vulnerabilities.
Jennifer | 10:22 AM
| I can't explain the feeling I had seeing the pictures from the Madrid bombing on the front page of the New York Times today. Someone has done a terrible, terrible thing.
Who that is, we still don't know, and certainly we need to. But I have a feeling that Americans will breathe a sigh of relief if its ETA and not Al Qaeda. That would be wrong, if relief comes from the feeling that we won't be next.
Certainly it matters who is behind this if its the difference between an attack on the Spanish government and an attack on the Western world. That must play into how we deal with the problem of terrorism. We can neither ignore terrorists, nor strike back blindly against them, nor give in. But we, by which I mean me and most of the people reading this, will not be the people making that choice.
Jennifer | 1:19 PM
| March 11th, we woke up to the story of the Madrid bombings. A small bird was adopted today in a difficult and sometimes terrible world.
Jennifer | 6:08 PM
| No one has come for the bird, despite posting signs at the pet store, and with the SPCA. Nonetheless, that little lost bird has found a home, with friend/neighbor Catherine and I. We are keeping him. Lil Greenie has two mommies.
Jennifer | 9:45 AM
| San Francisco's Mayor Newsom is working on the problems of our City's poorest neighborhoods. He's going into Hunter's Point, talking to families of people killed there, and encouraging witnesses to those murders to finally come forward, with both rewards and promises of safety in the witness protection program. This is one of those 100th Monkey situations. People murder with impunity and no one will testify against them because if they do, they'll get murdered with impunity. But once people start to come forward, and there are ramifications for these crimes, then killing witnesses won't really be an option, because (1) you'd be in jail and (2) you'd get caught for the murder of the witness. But it takes a lot of bravery for the first few people to step forward and turn the tide around. I hope that they will do so, because too many people are living in danger in Hunter's Point.
Jennifer | 8:37 AM
| I'm disturbed by Martha Stewart's conviction. Why are we prosecuting her over a $50K deal when there are so many other, bigger frauds awaiting the process of justice (Lay, Skilling, etc.)? The prosecution cost more than the money she saved. And what did she do wrong? If someone told you that a company in which you held stock was in trouble, wouldn't you sell it? The point behind the insider trading laws is to try to make it seem like everyone in the stock market is operating with equal resources, and that the market is therefore fair. But the small, unconnected investor is always at a disadvantage with regard to the bigger institutional players. Going after these dinky insider trading cases is like the Wizard of Oz: "Don't look at the man behind the curtain."
As for lying, why is lying to cover your own ass a crime? Isn't it like Clinton lying about his affair, part and parcel of the illicit act not to own up to it? Why extra punishment? You aren't going to disincentivize people from lying, because they are hoping the lie means they won't get caught at all. Is it because lying is immoral? Maybe, but its the most human thing in the world to do when you've done something wrong and you're about to get in trouble. I don't believe that behaviors that are inate human instinct should be the basis for criminal sanction.
The problem with making lying a crime is that you can get prosecuted for it even when the underlying act (Martha: selling the ImClone stock, Clinton: adultery) is not illegal. The difference between Martha and Clinton is that Clinton lied under oath. That should be a crime. Oaths need to mean something.
Jennifer | 4:58 PM
| In breaking news, a lost pet was found today. Is this your bird?
Jennifer | 1:19 PM
| Republican staffers have been spying on the Democrats by accessing and reading their confidential memos about strategy for opposing Bush administration judicial appointments. Manuel C. Miranda, one of the men, and a former senior counsel to Senators Hatch and Frist said that it was fundamentally wrong to consider the Democratic strategy documents as confidential, because they were easily accessible and that there was no "hacking," by which he meant that no security walls that needed passwords had been breached.
Mr. Miranda needs to do his research. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030, says, among other things, whoever intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication is guilty of a misdemeanor. It doesn't matter whether the documents were easily accessible, and if this crime is an accurate definition of "hacking", it doesn't matter whether any password protection was breached. Merely accessing the information without authorization is a crime.
I have actually had a client convicted for this very behavior. My client typed a URL into the "Go To" box on his browser and obtained a copy an ISPs password file that it was storing on a public webserver. He was charged with a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1030, and eventually pled guilty to a misdemeanor. Let's see if the Department of Justice holds these Republican staffers to the same standards of conduct to which they held my young immigrant client. I'm not going to hold my breath.
Jennifer | 11:56 AM
| Three girls were sentenced today for falsely reporting that a homeless man had attacked them, as an excuse for why they came home late. The man, allegedly a peaceful ex-Deadhead, spent eight months in jail before one of the girls admitted at his trial that they were lying. The police then arrested the girls, showing up at their school and dragging them away in handcuffs. Good! There's little more important to send a message about than that falsely accusing someone of a crime to cover your own ass is deeply immoral and illegal. But the more important question is: how can we improve a legal system that imprisons, and maybe would have convicted, a man based on the lies of three little girls?
Jennifer | 10:38 AM
| I heard on NPR today that American GIs in Iraq are sending their Iraqi interpreters to the music stores with shopping lists for pirated CDs of Guns n Roses, DMX and other rap and metal bands selling for two dollars apiece. Soldiers who are willing to die in battle to spread the American Way aren't able to resist cheap music. Poor Jack Valenti! At this rate, twenty dollar CDs wont be the American Way for long.
Jennifer | 2:21 PM
| Tomorrow is Super Tuesday and California's Primary Election. The Granick Slate Card picks for the San Francisco ballot follow. Prepare yourselves, its long.
The Granick Slate Card is a Production of Jennifer Granick and is licensed under a Creative Commons License. For license terms, visit www.granick.com/blog and click on the Creative Commons icon.�
To subscribe, send email to majordomo_at_www.granick.com with the words "subscribe slatecard" in the body.
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo_at_www.granick.com with the words "unsubscribe slatecard " in the body.
Friends, Romans, Republicans.....
Below are the Granick Slate Card picks for our March 2 Super Tuesday election, exactly five days from today. This is a primary, and I'm a registered Democrat, so I'm not picking Republican races, but the ballot measure endorsements should be helpful.
Some Resources:
http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/03/02/ca/sf/
http://www.sfchamber.com/positions_ballot_measures.htm
http://www.sfbg.com/38/21/cover_endorsements.html
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/
There's been a lot of elections this year, so let's get right to it.
President: John Edwards
Kerry's probably going to be the nominee, and hopefully our next president, and I'm feeling pretty good about that. But he's got to learn the lesson that Howard Dean taught the Democrats, which is that you can't win by playing it safe and hoping to get the "Anyone But Bush" vote. You have to take a stance. Edwards' "Two Americas" platform is great. He's talking about class and race and a vision of how government can help regular people. I think that the Democrats need to heed this message, and a vote for Edwards will help.�
On the other hand, you might want to send Kerry into the general election with a landslide of support behind him.�
Senator: Barbara Boxer
Even though I'm angry with her for taking a wishy-washy stance on gay marriage, Boxer's a powerful liberal force. The Republicans, including Arnold Schwarzenegger have targeted her seat this year and will throw a lot of money at unseating her in the general election.�
US House of Representatives
District 8: Nancy Pelosi
Map of District 8: http://www.sen.ca.gov/ftp/SEN/cngplan/CNGMAPS/MAP08_150.JPG
Pelosi, also a liberal, was much more supportive of S.F.'s refusal to continue to issue marriage licenses on a discriminatory basis than Boxer was.�
District 12: Ro Khanna
Map of District 12: http://www.sen.ca.gov/ftp/SEN/cngplan/CNGMAPS/MAP12_150.JPG
This is not my district, but I met Ro at a political party and I think his platform and presentation is great. The incumbent he's running against, Tom Lantos, has been in office a long time. He's got a reasonable voting record, but he supported both the war in Iraq and the USA Patriot Act, which Ro opposes. Ro also supports gay marriage and is comfortable with taking principled stands on issues like gay marriage, even if the rest of the country isn't exactly ready for the idea. I think its time for a change.�
State Senate, District 3
Carol Migden: From the Chronicle:� "In next Tuesday's primary, Migden will face fellow Democrat Davy Jones, a self-described housing coordinator and businessman. Jones is campaigning on an affordable housing platform and says he is "independent of the Democratic machine.'' ... Migden says she is campaigning on her record of protecting old-growth redwoods, promoting safe needle use in hospitals and creating a system to provide cleaner sources of energy for California's cities, among other accomplishments."
State Assembly
District 12: Leland Yee: The Guardian says that Yee hasn't done a darn thing since he got into office and refuses to endorse him.�
District 13: Mark Leno: I'm a long time supporter of Leno and he's done a great job in the assembly. He's an effective legislator and has focussed on important issues, including discrimination.
State Propositions:
Proposition 55 . School Bonds: Oh, ok!�
Should the state sell twelve billion three hundred million dollars ($12,300,000,000) in general obligation bonds for construction and renovation of K-12 school facilities and higher education facilities?
I'm usually for bonds for long term improvements, but against school bonds because I think the answer is to repeal Prop 13 and raise property taxes. But we're not going to do that, so....
Proposition 56 . State Budget: YES
Should the State Constitution and certain statutes be amended to allow the state legislature to pass the state budget and budget-related tax and appropriation bills with a 55 percent vote, and to make other changes to the budget process?
This will make it easier to pass a budget. Only 2 other states require a 2/3 vote, as we currently do. It will also make it easier to raise taxes, which is why the opponents are fighting against it.�
Proposition 57 . Borrowing Money:� NO
Should the state of California borrow 15 billion dollars ($15,000,000,000) through the sale of bonds to provide financing for California's budget deficit?
This is a really difficult one. After defeating Gray Davis, Arnold turns out to need to borrow money both to pay off old debt and to balance out the budget for next year. Opponents to the bill say the state needs to cut spending, which is right. I also do not believe in borrowing money to pay off old debt or balance the budget. We should only borrow for long term future improvements. Sacramento Bee editorial: http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/editorials/story/8273047p-9203707c.html, and SF Chron: http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/sparks/. Also, it would be nice to see Arnold fail at doing exactly what he criticized Davis for doing. But what are we going to do in the meantime? Top _Democrats_ including Feinstein, Boxer, State Senator Burton and Comptroller Steve Westly have come out in favor: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/11/MNGRA4U15T1.DTL. This is a bad idea, I think, but when in doubt, its often good to see who your bedfellows are. I'd rather be sleeping with Boxer than with the Republicans who will oppose. Still, I can't get over what a bad idea I think this is. Today, I'm leaning towards a "no" vote. There may be an update on Monday. ������
Proposition 58 . Required Balanced Budget: NO
Should the state Constitution be amended to require that the state adopt a balanced budget and provide for mid-year adjustments if the budget falls out of balance? Should the Constitution also include state budget reserve requirements and limits on future borrowing to finance budget deficits?
The provisions of this measure only take effect if Prop 57 passes, so these rise and fall together. I'll probably vote no.�
Local Ballot Measures:
Measure 2 . Regional Traffic Relief Plan -- County of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Solano (Regional Measure - Majority Vote) Yes
Shall voters authorize a Regional Traffic Relief Plan that does the following:
(1) Directs revenues generated through the collection of bridge tolls to provide the following projects:
(A) Expand and extend BART.
(B) New transbay commuter rail crossing south of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.
(C) Comprehensive Regional Express bus network.
(D) New expanded ferry service.
(E) Better connections between BART, buses, ferries, and rail.
(2) Approves a one dollar ($1) toll increase effective July 1, 2004, on all toll bridges in the bay area, except the Golden Gate Bridge?
Summarized from the Bay Guardian: Expanded A.C. Transit bus service, rail service on the Dumbarton Bridge, expanded bike and pedestrian access on both sides of the bay, and the creation of a universal transit pass are good. Some of the projects on the list, are just awful. including a fourth bore in the Caldecott Tunnel, and BART extensions to Warm Springs and east Contra Costa County. But the Greens and other environmental groups are backing it as a pretty good compromise.�
Measure A . YES
Tax-deferred Transfer of Accrued Vacation and Sick Leave to Employees -- City of San Francisco (Charter Amendment - Majority Approval Required)
Shall City employees who receive a cash payment for unused vacation time and sick leave be permitted to defer this payment and defer state and federal taxes on this payment?
This will save workers and the city money. A ballot measure that saves money for everyone!�
Measure B . YES
Retirement Benefits for District Attorneys, Public Defenders and Public Defender Investigators -- City of San Francisco (Charter Amendment - Majority Approval Required)
May the City contract with the California Public Employee Retirement System for retirement benefits for District Attorneys, Public Defenders and Public Defender investigators if there is no change in cost to the City?
No change in cost! At this rate, we'll pay off those bonds in no time.�
Measure C . Reduce the Minimum Police Staffing Level after Conducting a Study of Which Positions Could be Filled by Civilian Personnel -- City of San Francisco (Charter Amendment - Majority Approval Required)
Shall the City reduce the required number of uniformed Police officers if the City fills certain positions currently performed by uniformed officers with civilian staff?
Yes. Instead of having cops who are being investigated by internal affairs sitting at desks and doing paperwork, the department can hire civilians at less cost to do those jobs. The current paper-pushers would not be fired, just phased out as they retire.�
Measure D . YES
Retirement Benefits for Domestic Partners -- City of San Francisco (Charter Amendment - Majority Approval Required)
Shall domestic partners be allowed to register in the City, even if they live or work outside the City, and shall the City Employees' Retirement System treat domestic partners as spouses?
From the Guardian: This is particularly important for city workers because, currently, if they happen to live outside city limits, they aren't allowed to transfer pension benefits in the same way as married couples or domestic partners who live here. The supervisors could also make it so San Francisco would recognize domestic partnerships registered elsewhere.
Measure E . Yes
Board of Supervisors to Respond to Orders/Requests for the Production of City Records Under State and Federal Laws -- City of San Francisco (Charter Amendment - Majority Approval Required)
Shall the Board of Supervisors, rather than individual departments and officials, respond to requests made by the federal or state government for records that may contain private information about citizens?
This is a slap back at the USA Patriot Act. We'd join other cities around the country in saying that we don't think that giving up our privacy in the ways the statute requires makes us any safer.�
Measure F . NO
Reclassify Deputy Sheriffs as Safety Employees Covered Under Charter Section A8.590-1 et seq -- City of San Francisco (Charter Amendment - Majority Approval Required)
Shall the rules that apply to labor negotiations with the uniformed members of the Police and Fire departments also apply to labor negotiations with the deputy sheriffs?
This measure and the next were difficult to find information on, but this is the commentary from the SF Bay Guardian:
"A quirk in the City Charter currently allows police and firefighters to wait until after the city's budget is passed, and the fiscal year has started, before they have to conclude contract negotiations. This gives them inordinate leverage, allowing them to wheel and deal indefinitely, while all other city employees have to sign their contracts before the new fiscal year. Now the roughly 850 sheriff's deputies, who run the city's jails, are asking to have the same extended negotiating time as the cops and firefighters.
We're all for equity, but this is doing it backward. The cops and firefighters ought to have to same deadlines as everyone else � the early deadlines."
Measure G . No
Supplemental Compensation for Employees on Military Leave -- City of San Francisco (Charter Amendment - Majority Approval Required)
May the City provide supplemental pay for more than 180 days to City employees called for military service, and may the City provide this pay retroactively?
Military reservists who have been called to prolonged duty in Iraq are having a hard time financially. As it stands, the city and county of San Francisco may choose to make up the difference for local government employees for up to 180 days, in the event of "extraordinary circumstances" such as a protracted war: This would remove the 180 cap and allow the city to give people money retroactively. While the financial burden is hurting reservists families, this is a cost that the federal government should shoulder, not the City.�
Measure H . No
Establishing a Public Education Fund -- City of San Francisco (Charter Amendment - Majority Approval Required)
Shall the City create a fund to increase the City's spending for public education over the next eleven years?
The problem with this measure is that it requires increased funding for education out of the general fund without any additional revenue streams. I am against ballot measures earmarking money out of the general fund because I think it makes it impossible to set budget priorities in subsequent years. You may remember what I said about recent proposition 53 which would slate 3% of state money for general infrastructure costs:
At 12:06 PM -0700 10/1/03, Jennifer S. Granick wrote:
This proposition would slate 3% of general revenue funds for infrastructure expenses. California used to spend a lot greater percentage on infrastructure, now we spend less, and people think the roads, schools, etc. are shabby. That may be true, and we should spend more money of infrastructure, but earmarking money is not the way to do it.
You may remember my reason for voting against Arnold's last foray into government, his after school program financing initiative. "But earmarking money in the general fund is a bad way to fund programs. It reduces the what government has to spend on other things, like schools, health programs and environmental enforcement, and ties the hands of our elected representatives. There�s no flexibility in this proposition." This is even more true now. Less than 30 % of our budget is discretionary spending. Its hard for any governor or government to make important choices about budget priorities when so much of the budget is earmarked for other things.� If the government is to govern, we must give it something to govern with.
The guardian, which supports this measure, says: Even at its peak, Prop. H will influence less than 3 percent of the discretionary city budget � and if the city faces a deficit in any particular year, the contribution will be reduced.
Measure I . No
Healthy Air Enforcement Act of 2004 -- City of San Francisco (Ordinance - Majority Approval Required)
Shall Muni be required to replace diesel buses purchased before 1991, and shall any new Muni vehicles be required to meet the anti-pollution standards that apply to other City vehicles?
This would require the city to retire diesel buses even if they are perfectly good. This effort at micromanagement comes out of a misconception that pollution is only created by the running of buses. But the manufacture of new vehicles creates pollution, too. When the buses are ready to go, they should be replaced by clean air vehicles, but it doesn't help the environment to retire the buses when they still work and create a demand for new vehicles before they are needed.�
Measure J . No
Incentives to Build Below Market Rate Housing and Exceptions to Density Restrictions -- City of San Francisco (Ordinance - Majority Approval Required)
Shall housing developments located downtown or along the central waterfront be subject to less-restrictive density and height rules?
Prop J would speed up city review of certain projects and ease height and density limits, as well as cover $2 million in up-front environmental review costs. In exchange, developers would provide an additional 27 to 29 percent of condominiums for sale to the slightly-above-midrange earners, on top of the usual affordable-housing requirements. The Chamber of Commerce is sponsoring the proposition.
From the Guardian:
Prop. J was put on the ballot without a single public hearing, and if it passes, it would override a four-year-old public planning process for the central waterfront � a process neighbors have been closely involved in � and could overrule years of careful preservation work in part of Chinatown. The measure is cleverly written to potentially allow so-called workforce condos � which would be for sale, not for rent � to be constructed in nearly every residential neighborhood in the city. To qualify to buy one, you'd have to earn 120 percent of the area median income; the vast majority of San Franciscans earn far less and won't benefit.
There's a much better alternative. The Board of Supervisors is already working on a plan to provide denser housing while forcing developers to give significant cash back to the community for parks, community meeting spaces, local retail, and the other things that make a neighborhood work. Public hearings have already begun, and there will be lots of time to participate. In the meantime, vote no on J.
That's it for another exhausting election slate card.
For additional information, check out the impartial: http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/03/02/ca/sf/
+++++++++cut, carry and vote+++++++++++++++++cut, carry and vote++++++++++++cut, carry and vote++++++++++++++
President: John Edwards
Senator: Barbara Boxer
US House of Representatives
District 8: Nancy Pelosi
District 12: Ro Khanna
State Senate, District 3, Carol Migden
State Assembly, District 12: Leland Yee
District 13: Mark Leno
State Propositions:
Proposition 55 . School Bonds YES
Proposition 56 . State Budget� YES
Proposition 57 . Borrowing Money NO
Proposition 58 . Required Balanced Budget NO
Local Ballot Measures:
Measure 2 . Regional Traffic Relief Plan: Yes
Measure A . YES
Measure B . YES
Measure C . YES
Measure D . YES
Measure E . YES
Measure F . NO
Measure G . NO
Measure H . NO
Measure I . NO
Measure J . NO
+++++++++cut, carry and vote+++++++++++++++++cut, carry and vote++++++++++++cut, carry and vote++++++++++++++
The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men.
*Lyndon B. Johnson
I just received the following wire from my generous Daddy--"Dear Jack, Don't buy a single vote more than is necessary. I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for a landslide."
*John F. Kennedy
Onward!
Jennifer
Jennifer | 10:16 AM
|
M E
@ Job
@ What I Do There
@ Cat
@ Dog
@ Archive
@ email me
W H A T I ' M R E A D I N G
F A V O R I T E S
Comics:
@ 100 Bullets
@ Sock Monkey
@ League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
@ Jess Nevin's Annotations of League
@ Wigu
Politics:
@ Senator Russ Feingold: For fighting for our rights!
F R I E N D S / F O E S
@ Brad Stone's GEARHEADS!
@ Alex Wellen's BARMAN
@ Ethan Watters' URBAN TRIBES
@ Terra Nova: The Reality of Virtual Worlds
@ Sarah's Dog Blog
@ Internet Abyss
@ Lessig
@ Julian Dibbell
@ Radio Free Mike
@ Dornseif on Cybercrime
@ Aaron Swartz
@ Richard Thieme
@ Po Bronson
@ Steve Mann on Sousveillance
@ Freedom to Tinker
@ Joe Gratz
@ KerryWatch Archives
C R E D I T S
@Subscribe:
@ Template by
@ BlogSkins.com
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Atom Site Feed