Rancor and division dominated yesterday’s Finance Committee hearing on the proposed housing bond, and consensus appears more elusive than ever. Mayor Newsom has not personally participated in bond negotiations during the past week, but had time to tell a meeting set up by the city’s tourist industry that he would be making “major changes” to the city’s Building and Planning Departments. To further complicate matters, Newsom’s chief policy advisor is reported to have told a reporter that the Mayor was now focusing on a stand alone supportive housing bond, a major shift from the proposal adopted by his hand-picked Working Group. Say this for the Mayor-he is starting to make life at City Hall more interesting.
Yesterday’s Finance Committee hearing reprised the previous week’s battle between Chair Chris Daly and Newsom Housing Director Matt Franklin. Daly tried to forestall a conflict by warning Franklin to limit his comments to matters relevant to the issues at hand, but the new Director quickly made two comments that provoked Daly’s anger.
First, Franklin repeated the assertion that the mayor’s bond proposal was based on a broad consensus. Daly and Gonzalez hotly disputed this claim at the last hearing, yet Franklin felt obligated to repeat it yesterday.
Second, Franklin stated that the Mayor’s bond was structured to address those with the biggest unmet housing needs, which he then identified as households of moderate incomes. This comment not only had the audience shaking their heads in wonder-as most feel that low-income households suffer the worst housing needs-but it infuriated Daly.
Suffice it to say that the hearing never recovered, and the Newsom bond was continued to a future committee hearing.
Even prior to Daly-Franklin ll, the hearing got off to a very rocky start. Daly reported that the Mayor’s Office had made a counter-proposal that morning that divided the now $195 million bond in a way that gave affordable rental housing $7million less than what was anticipated.
This shift did not sit well with Calvin Welch of the Council of Community Housing Organizations, who had no knowledge of this reduction in rental housing funds until revealed by Daly. Welch and other speakers expressed confusion and dismay at the Mayor’s new proposal, contributing to the sense that negotiations around the bond were in disarray.
Last Friday, Supervisor Peskin laid out a proposal that he thought the Mayor, Daly and Gonzalez would all support. The latter two agreed with the deal but the Mayor did not.
It became clear yesterday that Peskin lacks what is known in the legal world as “client control.” Simply put, he cannot broker a deal on the bond because he cannot get the Mayor to go along.
Before his testimony abruptly ended, Franklin insisted that the Mayor would not change his stance that the bond must include $25 million for those earning 80-100% of median. He also stated that the Mayor would not agree to limit new construction with bond funds to those earning 80% of median or less, with those earning 80-100%.limited to receiving
down payment assistance.
Impasse may have been reached, which explains why the Mayor is reportedly returning to his original idea of a stand-alone supportive housing bond.
Newsom will announce as early as today a series of changes to the Building and Planning Departments. This will likely include the long-anticipated resignation of Frank Chiu as Director of Building Inspection, and the Mayor’s new appointments to the Planning Commission.
Chiu’s departure is a non-story, as he has been eager to leave the job for years. Under Prop G, the charter amendment passed by the voters in 1994, the Mayor has no role in the appointment of a new Director of Building Inspection.
The Building Department is the most prosperous city agency, so much so that the Mayor’s Budget Office is trying to divert nearly $6 million from DBI to the general fund. This would be a strange time for Mayor Newsom to claim that a “shake-up” is needed at DBI.
Newsom’s Planning Commission choices are unlikely to vote much differently from the Willie Brown appointees they replace. The new appointments may speed the Commission’s selection process for a new Director, but the hearings necessary to seat potential new Planning Commissioners have not even been scheduled.
Personnel moves look dramatic, but they do not compensate for the Mayor’s strange disengagement from negotiating directly on the housing bond and other issues.
