The Mayor's Op-Eds

 

Consensus Pension Reform Plan -- Working Together for San Francisco Families

Huffington Post

July 12th, 2011

While cities across the nation are struggling to reign in pension costs, San Francisco has been working hard and negotiating with its labor unions to develop a comprehensive consensus proposal that provides a dignified pension to its employees while remaining accountable to its taxpaying residents.

I joined a member of our Board of Supervisors, Sean Elsbernd, to submit the consensus plan to reform City employee pension and health benefits. I am optimistic that this will be placed on San Francisco's November 2011 ballot.

At City Hall, the plan is supported by both moderates and progressives alike. A broad coalition of San Francisco leaders -- from downtown business interests including Warren Hellman to labor unions to community groups to good government organizations -- joined us in announcing our consensus plan.

I have been consistent in my commitment to ensuring that the City remains fiscally solvent and our City's programs financially sustainable. In order to preserve basic city services and critical safety-net programs, San Francisco, like every other city and county across the county, has to address the large unfunded liabilities and unsustainable spending on employee benefits, including retirement, health care and retiree health.

 In order to address the problem, the City's plan does what other reform proposals fail to do -- the plan addresses not only pensions, but health benefits and retiree health care costs. In a comprehensive manner our plan prevents pension spiking, caps pension benefits, raises retirement ages, requires existing and new employees to share in pension and health costs. Furthermore, the City's plan requires that employees contribute more to the retiree health trust fund, a notable and significant cost-saver lacking in other proposals.

This plan seeks both long-term relief for the City, in the form of new, lower benefits for City employees who have yet to be hired, and immediate relief in the form of greater cost-sharing by current City employees for the existing retirement benefits.

When taken in the aggregate, the increased contributions by employees to their retirement and retiree health proposed in this plan will produce significant cost-savings that the City can use to preserve core government services. The comprehensive nature of our proposal reflects a belief that we must work together and share in the sacrifice for the benefit of the City as a whole.

Our proposal is not only serious; it is fair, equitable and legally-supportable. We are not just talking to our labor unions, but we are talking with them to make sure we are doing it together and doing it the San Francisco way.

This is a consensus plan of City leaders, labor, business, community that we can all stand behind. With a solvent city, we can provide vital city services and make the proper investments to keep families in our City.

(back to the top)

 

Treasure Island project offers many benefits to San Francisco

San Francisco Examiner

June 7th, 2011

The Board of Supervisors today will decide on a redevelopment plan for Treasure Island. Created for the 1939 World’s Fair and once a naval base, Treasure Island is now home to a growing neighborhood and community with sweeping scenic views of the San Francisco skyline.

The redevelopment plan being considered is a smart one that provides benefits not only to current and future residents, but to all San Franciscans — creating jobs, housing, parks, new transit and adding another iconic community to our city’s storied neighborhoods.

Our city has created, discussed and dissected plans for Treasure Island for decades. City planners and others have gone to unprecedented lengths to assure that this is a quality development plan — a plan that has already received widespread support from federal and local leaders.

Treasure Island has the potential to create hope for families who want to stay in San Francisco. At least 25 percent of the planned 8,000 residential units will be offered at below market rates. If the state allows The City to capture a higher share of the additional tax increments generated by the redevelopment of the island, the number of below market units will be increased to 30 percent. Nearly one-fourth of those units will be offered to the formerly homeless through the Treasure Island Homeless Development Initiative.

In addition to being a source of hope for many, Treasure Island will be a boost to our city’s long-term financial health. San Francisco’s budget analyst concluded in May that the redevelopment of Treasure Island will generate $95 million in net revenue to the general fund over 20 years with financial risk and all up-front investments borne entirely by the private developer.

Treasure Island is a job creator. The development itself is expected to generate 2,000 annual construction jobs. Under the current plan, an estimated 3,000 jobs will be permanently in place on Treasure Island. Nearly $4 million will be committed to job-training and hiring programs, most of it for city residents.

The Treasure Island plan supports our city’s transit-first policy. Planners have created options such as ferry service to San Francisco, expanded bus service, on-island shuttles and other alternative transportation.

These are all investments we are making for San Francisco families, and I am asking our supervisors to again support our working families and to approve this sensible, sustainable redevelopment of Treasure Island. Now is the time.

(back to the top)

 

 

 

Viewpoints: Case for high-speed rail grows only stronger

 

Sacramento Bee

June 7th, 2011

The last time many Californians thought about high-speed rail was in the voting booth. On that day, Nov. 4, 2008, more than 6 million of us voted to tell the state to get going, to build high-speed rail in California.

Now, 2 1/2 years later, the second guessing is in full swing. In recent weeks some have suggested that we should put the project on hold.

We couldn't disagree more.

California will need high-speed rail in the coming years to do something about the gridlock on our roads and at our airports. Building it is a major investment, but the most recent estimates say it would cost twice as much over the next generation to build new highways and runways just to move the same number of people. With California expected to grow by 12 million people in the next 25 years, investment in the state's transportation system is inevitable, and high-speed rail is a cost-effective alternative.
 
In the last 2 1/2 years the case for high-speed rail has gotten stronger, not weaker. When voters approved the plan, a barrel of oil cost about $55; today the price is almost $100. Unemployment was around 8 percent back then, and it is now over 12 percent statewide and even higher in many areas. Californians need the jobs.

There are bound to be questions with any project of this size. We welcome the dialogue. Last month the Legislative Analyst's Office published a report calling for at least a temporary halt to the project. The report alluded to a number of concerns about the project:

• The amount and timing of future federal funding are unclear.
• Spending state funds on rail will mean there is less money for other things.
• We do not yet know how much private investment the system can attract, or when it will come.
• Starting construction in the Central Valley is "a gamble."
Let's take the criticisms one at a time.

First is federal funding. While we don't know precisely how much we will get in future years, we've competed well up to this point. California's project has received the largest slice of federal high-speed rail funds to date – $3.6 billion out of $10.2 billion. This is in large part due to the extensive planning already under way at the state level and the ability to leverage voter-approved Proposition 1A funds. There is no other program where California competes so well for federal funding. We will continue to encourage additional investment – both public and private – while promoting efficiencies that allow us to stretch every dollar in creating jobs and planning for the future growth of this great state.

Second is state funding. The voters said high-speed rail was a priority and authorized spending $9 billion in state funds. The state continues to experience fiscal constraint due to diminishing revenues, but because construction is ramping up slowly we will only need 2 percent of these funds in the coming year to keep the project on track. The amount approved by voters will be spent over many years, keeping the impact on our state's budget low in any given year.
 
Third is private funding. Our high-speed rail system is expected to make money and attract private investment – similar to systems in Europe and Asia. Twenty-two different funds have shown investment interest in financing part of the system's capital costs. Demonstrating our commitment by beginning major construction and finalizing all the approvals will minimize investor risk and net the best terms for the taxpayers.
 
Finally, there is the matter of where to start building. Many Southern Californians have said we should give priority to their part of the state; same in the Bay Area. We know that this system will never be a success until it connects these two population centers and does so in a way that is sensitive to local concerns. But the question of where to start does not require complicated analysis. The place to start is the place where we're ready to start, and that's the Central Valley.

No one thinks we should build the line through the Central Valley and then stop. And we won't. There is a parallel to the building of the Interstate Highway System more than 50 years ago. When we started building the Interstate Highway System, the first segments to be completed were not in New York or Los Angeles. The interstate was born in the middle of the country, America's heartland, with the very first sections laid in Kansas and Missouri and then connected to the rest of the nation.

On the day that first segment of interstate was dedicated we did not know where all the money would come from to build a 40,000-mile network throughout the nation, and we did not know when it would be finished. However, it was because of the vision of those who were willing to initiate the effort that, today, America has the most extensive highway system in the world.

California and the United States need high-speed rail, so let's keep going.

(back to the top)


 

Another reminder to be prepared for earthquakes

 

San Francisco Examiner

 April 17th, 2011

In the past few months, we have witnessed the unimaginable devastation caused by catastrophic earthquakes in New Zealand and Japan, and the destruction brought on by the ensuing tsunami has been overwhelming. Our thoughts and prayers are with those whose lives have been impacted by this tragedy, which is an all too clear reminder of our region’s vulnerability and the need to continue preparations for the next major earthquake.

The question is when, not if, there will be another event like the Loma Prieta earthquake that shook San Francisco in 1989, and this year marks the 105th anniversary of the 1906 great earthquake and fire. These historic moments and the jarring reality of recent events provide an opportunity to reinvigorate our commitment to a culture of preparedness that will greatly improve our abilities to save lives during any natural disaster.

Since 1989, almost 200 of our city’s buildings and facilities have been seismically retrofitted to improve their performance and the safety of the public. This includes facilities that house our first responders and will allow The City to continue to provide uninterrupted emergency services and vital resources like water and electricity after a disaster or earthquake. In my previous role as city administrator, I worked with PG&E to ensure the reliability of The City’s gas and electric infrastructure, and I oversaw The City’s disaster recovery and response planning efforts, bringing every department together to coordinate response and recovery for the next major emergency.

We’ve made great progress in recent years by seismically upgrading our hospitals, our water system and our critical infrastructure, but we also need to make sure that every single family has a plan. Being prepared isn’t necessarily a one-time checklist of tasks. It should be a part of our everyday lives, whether we are creating a family emergency plan around the dinner table or picking up essential items on our next grocery trip.

There are myriad resources available to help you prepare, including The City’s award-winning website, www.72hours.org. You can also call 3-1-1 to request emergency preparedness brochures, and the Department of Emergency Management’s www.quakequizsf.org tests your knowledge of what to do if an earthquake strikes, no matter where you are. In an emergency, many alerting tools can aid us, including The City’s Outdoor Public Warning siren system, Emergency Alert System messages broadcast on radio and television stations, and AlertSF, a text-based message system that delivers emergency information to cell phones and other text-enabled devices, as well as email accounts. If you live in San Francisco and have not yet registered for AlertSF, I urge you to sign up at www.alertsf.org.

While the people of Japan are foremost in our thoughts, we are also taking these events as a stark reminder of our own need to be better prepared and more resilient as a community and a city.

(back to the top)

 

 

Twitter tax deal will create jobs, address blight

 

San Francisco Chronicle

March 23rd, 2011

San Francisco's Mid-Market and Tenderloin neighborhoods have posed considerable challenges to San Francisco for decades. Storefront vacancy on central Market Street exceeds 30 percent, the highest we know of in the city.

These vacancies, combined with the size of buildings and the degraded condition of some of them, makes revitalization of this area a city priority. Coupled with this is the need to create jobs in San Francisco and revitalize our local economy.
 
Today, San Francisco will likely move one step closer to realizing our goal of a better Mid-Market Street and Tenderloin. A Board of Supervisors committee is expected to recommend approval of our proposal to suspend the city's payroll tax for up to six years on new jobs created in these areas, and the full board could vote on the measure as early as Tuesday.

Our goal is to keep Twitter in the city and watch it grow, while creating jobs and giving a much-needed economic lift to the Mid-Market and Tenderloin neighborhoods.

This legislation will accomplish crucial policy goals and increase city revenues to help pay for basic services for us all. It also serves as a clear reminder that in order for San Francisco to attract and retain high-tech companies, our policies need to be as creative and nimble as the companies driving the 21st century innovation economy.
 
Throughout its history, businesses grew in San Francisco by taking advantage of a skilled and motivated workforce. While we still have a diverse economy anchored in tourism and global trade, much of our future job growth will depend on our ability to incubate the Twitters, Zyngas and Salesforces of tomorrow, and to keep them here.
 
It's not just the tech jobs - it's all the work created for everyone from caterers to custodians. And when we attract and retain high-tech companies, more will follow.
 
We can succeed with the right policies. Last week, Twitter told the city that if the payroll tax exclusion passes, it will stay in San Francisco and move into the Art Deco-style San Francisco Mart building on Market Street between Ninth and Tenth streets. Twitter will contribute to the revitalization of struggling neighborhoods and keep 21st century jobs in San Francisco where they belong.
 
The payroll tax exclusion gives the city a financial tool to stimulate local business development in an extremely challenging low-income neighborhood.
 
In the end, this will create new tax revenue for our city while benefiting the residents and the struggling small businesses of the Tenderloin and South of Market, while increasing public safety and supporting robust transit improvements.

(back to the top)