 November/December 2007 | |||
|
Table of Contents
President's Column
SFYD did not endorse Mayor Gavin Newsom in his bid for re-election. I stand by our decision. I stand by our endorsement not because I agree with the outcome or because of my personal feelings about the Mayor. I stand by our endorsement because, as we do with every ballot-issue and elected-office position that we take, we gave all sides equal opportunity to address our membership, through written and spoken presentations. I stand by our endorsement because we stuck to our process. And I stand by our endorsement because our membership made an informed decision based on the information they had before them. The end result of that decision was that no candidate for Mayor received 60% or more of the total endorsement vote cast, as required by our Bylaws. Since SFYD’s endorsement vote, I have heard from various people within our elected family and their staff that we should have supported the Mayor, mostly because virtually every other Democratic organization did so. To those people who feel like we made the wrong decision, I would say two things. First of all, if you were not at the meeting, then you were not witness to the candidates’ presentations and the answers they gave to SFYD members’ questions, in which case you might not understand the dynamics of that meeting. Secondly, we had one of the highest endorsement vote turnouts we have ever had, and as such, the vote reflected the cross-section of our membership, and not some organized effort by one side or another to influence the outcome. And to the critique that SFYD is either a “progressive” or “moderate” organization in the San Francisco local politics sense of the word, I would say that we vote our conscience, our pocketbook, and our heart… same as anyone else. We are often a divided membership over some of the more contentious issues, and we have typically not fallen within San Francisco’s traditional “progressive” versus “moderate” stereotypes, and for good reason. SFYD represents young people. Today’s young people are more and more saddled with incredible debt from college, the likes of which few of our City’s “progressive” or “moderate” leaders could even fathom, on the magnitude of $30,000 to $100,000. And college is not a luxury, nor does it necessarily secure a decent-paying job today as it might once have even just 15-20 years ago, as it has become just one more expected layer of training as more people get a college education today than ever before. Today’s young people are the ones more often taking the new service-industry jobs – out of college – which seem to be the only type of jobs Bush’s economy has consistently created. Today’s young people are the ones paying out half or more of their income to try and finagle a spot in an apartment, any apartment, so they can be in this City, while many of our City’s leaders have long since gotten theirs, either through homeownership or through a rent-controlled apartment, the rent for which has long since fallen below today’s market levels. This isn’t to say that our City’s leaders have failed today’s young people, but to say that, on a visceral level – the kind of level where it hits you in the gut on a daily basis – our leaders do not understand young people’s issues. Instead SFYD, and the endorsement and other decisions we make, get shunted into the “progressive” and “moderate” labels of yesteryear in order for others to make sense of us. What? Didn’t endorse the Mayor? We must be progressive. What? Opposed 2006’s Proposition G for conditional use permits on all chain stores? We must be moderate. Actually, no, it’s much simpler than that. We’re the next generation, as we’re so often told, and we have an opinion. And we refuse to be told what to think or what to believe, and we draw our own conclusions based on the information that makes the most sense to our college-educated, debt-saddled, under-utilized minds. And sometimes the conclusions we draw befuddle the rest of the City’s leaders, but then perhaps the issue is not so much with the conclusions that we draw, but with those who want to draw them for us. Michael's Minute Mayors from 50 cities across the globe including London and Sydney, Cape Town and Buenos Aires, and many other great metropolises came together to sign a historic document, The Urban Environmental Accords. This document was similar to the Kyoto Treaty in that each signing City would commit to reduce electricity use, increase recycling efforts, and other sustainable-driven goals. It was a great moment for Mayor Newsom but has failed to keep the attention of the City at large. Recently, a report released by the Civil Grand Jury questioned whether the City could actually meet it goals. Many feel that it can and will, but is that enough? Could, or better yet, should San Francisco go beyond what others are doing to truly become the greenest City on the planet. We certainly have the opportunity, with above average income, education, and political rhetoric. How far could the City go?? My wife and I are interested in moving the City forward. We are beginning to discuss with people the idea of banning the sale of incandescent light bulbs in the City and County. This is not a terribly novel nor extreme proposition, but it would make an incredible difference in the amount of energy this city needs. Incandescent light bulbs use 90 percent of the electricity not to produce light but to produce the heat needed to make the tiny wire filament produce light. Compact Florescent Light bulbs on the other hand produces 400% more light per dollar than an incandescent bulb. The California Energy Commission has reported that if the state of California could eliminate every incandescent light bulb, CO2 emissions would be cut by 1.82 million metric tons per year. That’s a lot!! But this City could lead the charge. California Assemblymember Lloyd Levine attempted to get the legislation through the state congress by failed. We could do it here. We have the consciousness of the board, the corporate ties in the executive, and the will of the people. Will you join us? A Report on Healthy San Franicsco
I am happy to report that the Healthy San Francisco Program, created by the Worker Health Care Security Ordinance, which I authored in partnership with organized Labor and the Mayor’s Office, is off to a fantastic start. The program, which focuses on preventative and primary care, is designed to meet the healthcare needs of the roughly $80,000 uninsured adult residents of San Francisco, regardless of their ability to pay (fees are levied on a sliding scale based on means). Unlike conventional insurance programs, Healthy SF will not discriminate against potential enrollees based on immigration status, a pre-existing medical condition, or employment status. No municipality has come close to initiating a plan that amounts to universal health care, and we are proud that San Francisco has the distinction of being on the very cutting edge of healthcare policy. The program’s first phase of enrollment was open to the neediest of the uninsured, namely, those residents with an income below 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (incomes under 10,000/year). Nearly 2,000 people have enrolled in the program, this despite the fact that until mid-September there was only one clinic in the City actively enrolling people. The program has expanded to another 22 health centers around the City, now offering 27 sites (a mixture of non-profit and public health centers) where people can enroll in the plan. As the program continues to expand in phases over the next 24 months, we expect that by the close of 2008, upwards of 46,000 people will be receiving quality healthcare from through our public health system and partnering medical facilities through Healthy SF. Healthy SF is financed through contributions from individual members, employers, the City and County, and through a number of State and Federal grant sources, and requires no supplemental contribution from the City’s General Fund. Though the program was always theoretically open to undocumented immigrants, many of whom live in District 9, but questions arose about how those without an I.D. could prove residency and thus qualify for Healthy SF. I’m happy to announce that I have introduced legislation that would allow the City to create a municipal I.D. card that will fill just such a need, and I can now be sure that all of my constituents will be able to access this plan without hassle. We are no longer inching along in our quest to provide San Franciscans access to universal healthcare, we are moving forward in leaps and bounds. Check out Healthy SF on the web at: http://www.healthysanfrancisco
| |||
| Â |
