Will Newsom Sink Muni Reform to Please Don Fisher?

by Paul Hogarth, 2007-07-27

After extensive negotiations with Mayor Gavin Newsom, Muni and affected labor unions, Supervisor Aaron Peskin extensively re-wrote his Charter Amendment to revamp the City’s transit agency. But in a July 25th press release, Newsom – who backed Muni reform from the start – threatened to withdraw his active support because of a provision that would effectively trump the Downtown Parking Initiative. Bankrolled by Gap founder Don Fisher, the Downtown Parking Initiative is viewed by public transit advocates as the worst thing on the ballot this November.

At the July 24th Supervisors meeting, Peskin said that he had always made it clear that the parking provision would be considered as part of his Muni Reform charter amendment – and that he did not include it at a press conference promoting the measure at the Mayor's request. While the Mayor’s representatives said at the Board meeting that Newsom did not support the provision, they did not indicate that its inclusion would be a “deal-breaker.” But now the Mayor may jeopardize the Charter Amendment's passage.

“You don’t reform a transit authority overnight,” said Peskin when he introduced the final package at the Board meeting. “This is part of an evolution of reform, and there are many parties at the table. All of this has been a set of trade-offs between competing interests.” If there was one major complaint about Peskin’s original Charter Amendment, it is that the major stakeholders had not come together – which is why labor fervently opposed it. Only now, after many parties have worked hours on a compromise measure that everyone can live with (and labor comes on board) does the Mayor threaten to pull his support.

The provision in question would keep the City’s current parking zoning laws as they now stand, although a super-majority of the Board could still vote to provide additional parking spaces on a site if appropriate. The Board would also maintain the discretion to reduce the maximum number of parking required in housing projects – which is consistent with our goal of supporting development that discourages car usage. “If we want to have a 21st Century Downtown,” said Peskin, “where we can move our buses and light rail, we have to fundamentally decongest the area.”

Because it would be part of a Charter Amendment – and not an initiative ordinance – this provision would trump the Downtown Parking Initiative, a draconian measure that would increase the amount of cars while forever destroying the ability to create new housing projects along major transit corridors that are affordable and eco-friendly. With a low voter turnout this November as Newsom runs for re-election unopposed, there is a legitimate fear that the Downtown Parking Initiative could pass. Peskin should be commended for adding this provision – which would preserve a sane planning policy.

Newsom claims that adding the provision “confuses two separate issues,” and that the City’s parking regulations have “nothing to do” with Muni reform. But the Charter Amendment also increases the MTA’s clout by giving it a larger portion of the parking revenue, and would allow the transit agency to make key parking and traffic decisions in the City. As the Charter Amendment already deals with parking policy, adding such a provision was consistent – albeit a “separate political battle.”

At the Board meeting, Peskin said he had made it “abundantly clear” to all those who had participated in negotiations that the parking provision would be included in the Charter Amendment. According to labor union officials privy to these discussions, Peskin had indeed told them for some time that he would present it in the final package – although there was never a firm decision to support it. Nevertheless, labor has said that they are in full support of the Muni Charter Amendment, and would like to see it passed.

To Peskin’s surprise, the Mayor’s Office announced at the Board meeting for the very first time – after Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier asked them – that Newsom “is not in support of that particular provision.” However, they did not indicate that it would be a “deal-breaker” that would cause the Mayor to withdraw his support. Even so, it is clear that Newsom had been made well aware of the provision for some time and could have notified Peskin in negotiations if it would indeed hamper the final product.

In his July 25th press release – conveniently sent out at 6:23 p.m. – Newsom claimed that Peskin had submitted a “different version” of the Charter Amendment than the one he had supported at the previous day’s press conference. Ironically, the final product was “different” because Newsom had asked Peskin not to include the parking provision at the press conference. “It was the desire of the Mayor,” said Peskin, “that this not be included [at the press conference], and that it would be up to the Board to consider today.”

Did Newsom intend to kill the parking provision all along, or did he get a phone call from Don Fisher who told him to sink Muni reform if it had that provision? Regardless of the answer, you have to admit that asking Peskin to remove the provision before the press conference was a brilliant political move. Because it was not included at the press conference, Alioto-Pier could later say that the Charter Amendment was “not the same” than what had been introduced to the public – and accuse Peskin of pulling a fast one on the press, the public and the parties who had negotiated.

But the Board supports the parking provision – as a motion by Ed Jew and Alioto-Pier to remove it failed by a vote of 8-3 (only Gerardo Sandoval joined them.) It is going to be placed on the ballot in its current form, and Newsom is obstructing the process by threatening to withdraw his active support if the provision stays. The Muni Charter Amendment was a work in compromise where everyone was willing to give a little. Making an 11th-hour move to withdraw your support sounds like pulling a fast one to me.

Send feedback to paul@beyondchron.org