Supervisor Jake McGoldrick: Jessica's Law, Transit Issues

Resolution Asks for Clarification on Implementation of Jessica's Law
I introduced a resolution in October that urges state Attorney General Jerry Brown to clarify how Jessica's Law (Proposition 83) and conflicting laws (penal code 3003, which requires sex offenders to return to the county where their crime was committed and penal code 290.03, which mentions transience as an option for those offenders unable to find compliant housing) can be properly applied.

I did so because a disturbing internal memo from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation regarding housing options for parolees was brought to the attention of our office.

As you may know, Jessica's Law increases penalties for violent and habitual sex offenders and child molesters, prohibits parolees' residence within 2,000 feet of schools and parks, and requires global positioning system monitoring of registered sex offenders. This law was approved by California voters on Nov. 8, 2006.

The memo, sent to regional parole officers, stated that parolees unable to find housing in compliance with Jessica's law had an option of declaring transience, or homelessness, in order to avoid going back to jail. Since there are very few geographical areas in San Francisco more than 2,000 feet from a school or park, housing that meets compliance is rare in our city.

The San Francisco Police Department agreed with our concerns, finding this policy of homelessness an impediment to closely monitoring sex offenders. The department subsequently reported a marked increase in sex offenders registering as homeless in October. This policy not only puts the safety of the public in jeopardy, it goes against the public notification required anytime a sex offender moves into a community per Megan's law.

San Francisco, like any other community, will be acutely affected by this policy as sex offenders are released into the community after time served and are limited by the density of the population.

Community Input on the Transit Effectiveness Project
Our office continues to receive suggestions about Muni service throughout our district and the City, so we have a very good idea of the passions stirred by transit! I wanted to remind you that the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) continues to collect information on how to improve Muni, and your input is absolutely necessary.

If you are interested in setting up a presentation for your group or organization, please feel free to let our office know or you can contact TEP directly. We have had a number of meetings in our district, and will be happy to help organize any future meetings. To offer suggestions and questions, you may e-mail info@sftep.com or call (415) 701-4599. TTY users may call (415) 701-2323 and Spanish and Chinese speakers may call (415) 226-1313. For general information, call 311.

Update on Mobility, Access and Pricing Study
As chair of the SF County Transportation Authority, I am happy to report that Authority staff are nearing the midway point in its Mobility, Access and Pricing Study (MAPS), which will examine the concept of congestion pricing, among other measures, to manage congestion in San Francisco.

Congestion is a barrier to sustainable growth. Our streets need to accommodate a weekday population of more than 1 million people along with transit vehicles, cars and bicycles that get them to and from home, work and school. We also need to plan for the city's anticipated population growth - ABAG projects San Francisco will gain approximately 135,000 new residents in the next 25 years.

San Francisco is not the only city examining congestion pricing. With the US Department of Transportation's encouragement, nearly 30 U.S. metropolitan areas are considering the implementation of some form of congestion pricing. Other cities, such as New York and Washington D.C., are also looking at congestion pricing as a tool for managing congestion, reducing pollution, and supplementing existing transportation revenues.

Pricing has been proven to reduce the number of cars on the road, improving traffic flow, reducing the number of accidents, decreasing emissions that have a negative impact on public health and increasing funds (and therefore improving service) for public transit. Rome, London and Stockholm all saw drastic revenue increases, transit improvements, and decreases in congestion between 20 and 30 percent through their congestion pricing programs.

I encourage you to get informed about the study and get involved in the process by visiting www.sfmobility.org, or calling (415) 522-4800. Whether or not congestion pricing makes sense for San Francisco depends both on the technical feasibility and, most importantly, public input.

Supervisor Jake McGoldrick represents District 1.