Supervisor Jake McGoldrick

Public property, public benefits
Property is value. Our public infrastructure, such as public rights of way, sidewalks and light poles, have been paid for and maintained by our residents through taxes and fees. Public infrastructure is held by government for the public's benefit.

Benefits can include revenue for public services, consumer protections, public accountability and public access.

When an exclusive or near-exclusive use of public property is granted to an individual, a company or a small group of interests, our public property rights and the benefits we receive from these rights can be at risk. When this happens, there is an imbalance between the public good and the good of a few private interests.

The government's role is to ensure the equitable distribution of these public benefits through public property rights. For example, the city grants revocable permits to sidewalk flower stand vendors. The permit grants vendors the right to operate their business in the public right of way. The permit fee allows the City to monitor and ensure that sidewalks are not obstructed from the use and that the public can use the sidewalks safely.

Unfortunately, the abuse of publicly held property does occur. When this happens, it is the government's role to protect public property and its benefits. The practice of "selling" the right to use public property from one private interest to another should not be allowed.

In one case, a former flower stand operator demanded nearly $100,000 from a new flower stand operator to "transfer" his permit.

Another example is the use of the city's white zones by valet parking companies. These companies pay a one-time license fee ranging from $384-$586 to operate at various white zones. While the public pays for the maintenance of these sidewalks, our use is limited.

How do we make these uses more equitable between private interests and the public interest?

In the case of sidewalk flower stands, the permit needs to revert back to the City when a flower stand is abandoned or the permittee dies. Then, the City can award the permit to another small business person to operate a flower stand in the same location.

In the public realm, we cannot afford to grant the use of valuable public property without receiving a significant public return on our asset. What is the value conferred in such an exchange? Private owners do not invest in their property and sell or lease at a lower price than the cost of their investment. The city and county of San Francisco should adopt this practice as well.

The City did not adopt this practice with its bus transit shelters. Nineteen years ago, the City granted the exclusive right to advertise at these shelters in exchange for the construction and maintenance of the shelters. For 19 years, the contractor has made tens of millions of dollars from the advertising on about 1,200 shelters while the City has received a pittance. This must change.

Our public property rights in the granting of a contract must be essentially the same as a private property right to receive an equitable return for our valuable asset.

The mayor's office is currently proposing a sweetheart deal to lease public property to EarthLink-Google in a WiFi deal. In this unbalanced partnership, EarthLink-Google would use our public assets, such as buildings and light poles. In this exchange, the only guarantee is that the provider will dictate the quality and cost of service.

Private use of public property for private profit can strip the public of benefits (e.g., public access, accountability) and certain rights. In the EarthLink-Google WiFi deal, consumer protection and privacy rights are at stake since the companies will collect user data. The contract does not limit data retention and fails to limit the uses of such data by a third party. Therefore, consumers lose privacy and the government loses its governance.

Taxpayers would subsidize EarthLink-Google's businesses by providing our valuable infrastructure for very little. Not only do public property rights protect consumer interests, but such rights serve a common good by having any profit directly benefit the City's residents.

The fees collected from white zone usage help pay for Muni.

Profits that are available to a private contractor for advertising on bus transit shelters would be better spent to fund Muni.

Municipally governed WiFi could ensure that those less able to pay can still have high speed, low cost services.

San Francisco Supervisor Jake McGoldrick represents District 1.