Paul Kozakiewicz: Kudos for Kathy, Recall Going Strong

In June the California Court of Appeals sent a city housing plan that was scant on public feedback, particularly from the west side, back to the drawing board. The plan would have increased housing density, decreased parking, and increased pollution. (See story page 3.)

The three justices bought attorney Kathryn Devincenzi's argument, on behalf of various neighborhood groups, that changes made to the city's General Plan were significant enough to the environment to require more study. It's a shame community groups had to sue the city to get some basic answers about issues of great concern to the neighborhoods.

It appears to be the modus operandi of this SF Board of Supervisors to do whatever they want and the public be damned. They just steamroll legislation and ignore the public's hue and cry.

Kudos to Devincenzi, who represented the neighborhood groups.

When I first started the Richmond Review in 1988, one of the first stories we did, and continued to follow, was the Laurel and Presidio Heights groups that were fighting the University of California's plan to put "wet" laboratories at the university's Laurel Heights campus at 3333 California St. Devincenzi won that battle.

And she struck again with her victory at the appeals court level.

In the heat of the courtroom, she stood her ground and demonstrated a thorough understanding of the issues, even while under fire from the justices. She is one of the best attorneys in the City.

Campaign Update: New Office Opens
Members of the Committee for the Recall of Jake McGoldrick are still gathering signatures to put the District 1 supervisor on the ballot.

As of presstime, more than 2,000 signatures were in hand. About 3,700 are needed to qualify for the ballot. If the signatures are turned into the SF Department of Elections by July 9, local residents would have an opportunity to affirm or deny the supervisor's continued representation on the November ballot.

However, if a likely signature-gathering challenge by the McGoldrick campaign is made, the recall would automatically go on the February election. The deadline for submitting signatures for the February election would be in late September.

The bottom line is, there is no hard deadline for gathering signatures. We will collect them until we have enough to put the recall the ballot.

In an effort to further the cause, the recall committee has opened a new headquarters at 5442 Geary Blvd., at 18th Avenue. Any registered District 1 voter can stop by to sign a petition, or any volunteer can stop by to pick up campaign materials or volunteer. The headquarters is open Monday through Friday, from 2 to 5 p.m., and on Saturday from 10 a.m. to noon. For more information, call (415) 379-3519.

No Special Election
By the way, the McGoldrick campaign sent out a mailer saying the recall election "could" cost $200,000, instead of "would" cost $200,000. It was a sleight-of-hand that a magician would appreciate.

Changing a "w" to a "c" in the mailing changes the charge from an outright lie to a remote possibility. The only way the recall election could cost city taxpayers $200,000 is if the full Board of Supervisors calls for a special election after the Feb. 5, 2008 election. The issue of qualifying will have been long-since settled by that time.

As long as the signatures are turned in by the deadline for the February election, the San Francisco elections code mandates the recall effort be a part of a regularly-scheduled election.

Although the recall election won't cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, some people still believe it.

That's why McGoldrick's political consultants get the big bucks.

Setting the Record Straight
I took a pretty good hit from the SF Bay Guardian in June for my columns about the recall, which were termed "inflammatory."

The poor folks at the Guardian are all in a tizzy because one of their "progressive" supervisors is being recalled for gross malfeasance. (Uh oh, I'm being inflammatory again.) They rush like a moth to the flame to defend someone who claims to share its same myopic views of the universe.

The Bay Guardian is a self-proclaimed progressive newspaper that perpetuates negative stereotypes of women in its back pages and squashes the efforts of its employees to unionize. The progressive paper that is, by definition, nothing but opinions because it practices advocacy journalism. The Guardian prints all of its stories to push a particular point of view, such as its continual harping about municipalizing PG&E.

I write columns, clearly marked as opinion, so the public can decide whether or not a position I have taken makes sense. My columns don't wear a cloak of objectivity and the public knows that. In the Guardian, everything is slanted to further the stated objectives of its cause, furthering the so-called"progressive" movement that many people feel is ruining the City for many poor and middle class people and families due to its "regressive" nature.

In the June 13 Guardian, it ran a photograph that was tightly cropped to show only four white males - it cut out the Asian men and women and other dozen members of the community who make the recall a true grass roots movement. And, as expected, the Guardian wouldn't even run a letter to the editor responding to their hit-piece article.

I despise advocacy journalism because it tries to tell people "what to think," instead of giving them information from multiple sources, presented in a fair manner, so the reader can make up his or her mind. That's why I almost never pick up the rag, and why anyone with half a brain knows that the propaganda in the Guardian isn't worth reading as a viable news source.

Real Reason for Recall
McGoldrick has a record over the past six years.

In the upcoming election, he has to defend that record to the people who put him in office. He also has to explain why dozens of his constituents have been systematically denied access or rebuffed in their efforts to be represented at City Hall. He has to explain why their votes on election day did not count - including those concerning Saturday road closures in Golden Gate Park and not limiting Tenancies-in-Common as a way for first-time home buyers to own a piece of San Francisco.

In June alone, McGoldrick withdrew his proposal to combine most of the elections in the city into one super-election, the Board of Supervisors rejected his plan to increase greens fees at Harding Park, and the city controller confirmed that McGoldrick's plan to levy an Inclusionary Housing tax on people who want to build or expand two-to-four-unit buildings will have an "extremely adverse impact" on home building.

After reportedly spending $7,000 to poll Richmond residents, the McGoldrick campaign has decided to attack the recall effort instead of defending the supervisor's record. It's an obvious act of desperation. McGoldrick was the first choice of only 41 percent of the district's voters in the last election. Given his arrogant attitude and flagrant disregard for the concerns of a majority of his constituents, he has an uphill climb.

The recall committee's job is simple - to prove the supervisor is malfeasant. If we do so, we will win. If we don't, we will lose.

People are passionate on both sides of the issue. In the end, the winning message will resonate with a majority of the Richmond District residents going to polls to vote. But, whatever the outcome it will be the will of the people that decides the issue. It will be the system of checks and balances that ultimately holds a politician accountable for representing the people he serves, even if he is beyond the pale of the electorate because of term limits.

That's called democracy.

Paul Kozakiewicz is the editor of the Richmond Review.