Connect with us

San Francisco, CA

Drug market sweeps yield a lot of arrests, but few prosecutions in San Francisco

Published

on

Drug market sweeps yield a lot of arrests, but few prosecutions in San Francisco


Big sweeps, but few prosecutions in San Francisco. 

At this point, law enforcement officials are standing by the strategy of enforcing and tracking down where drug markets move even if they aren’t leading to many prosecutions at this point. 

Advertisement

San Francisco’s Police Department has highlighted several high-visibility enforcement efforts, including just over a week ago at the intersection of Market and Van Ness to show the renewed effort to crack down on open-air drug markets and use. 

So far no charges

While that sweep resulted in 40 or so arrests, so far no one has been charged. 

Advertisement

Law Professor David Levine from UC School of Law San Francisco said police can arrest someone based on probable cause, but prosecutors need to meet the higher bar of beyond a reasonable doubt to win a case. 

“There’s a big difference between the standards police use to make an arrest versus what the prosecutors use to initiate a prosecution and ultimately what they need to win a case in front of a jury,” said Levine.

What they’re saying:

Advertisement

San Francisco police issued a statement reading in part, “17 of the arrests at Market and Van Ness were for outstanding warrants that were sent to the appropriate jurisdictions. These efforts have led to better outcomes. Our streets are cleaner and safer where we enforce the law.” 

Calling it successful 

San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins’ office also weighed in, calling the enforcement a success and saying most of those arrested were cited for misdemeanors and will appear in court within the next month or so.

Advertisement

The DA released a statement reading in part, “Successful prosecution and law enforcement requires a robust, collaborative partnership among agencies, and we are committed to working with our partners to offer guidance on what we need to meet our burden of proof.”

Supervisor Matt Dorsey, whose district includes the South of Market, agrees that simply having police disrupt drug markets and use is an important step, and can even be a tool to get drug users into treatment, and impact the demand side of the drug trade. 

Advertisement

“The party is over”

“This isn’t about going back to the war on drugs,” said Supervisor Dorsey, “It is about telling people that the party is over. We have to restore public order in San Francisco.”

Legal experts say even without prosecutions, law enforcement may be sending a message. 

Advertisement

“Because you’re going to make these criminals at least a little more careful about what they’re doing,” said Levine. “They’re going to be a little bit more discreet about what they’re doing.”

What’s next:

The DA said her office will be meeting with SFPD next week to discuss the recent enforcement, and offer guidance on what her attorneys need to successfully prosecute cases. 

Advertisement

 

San FranciscoSan Francisco Police DepartmentNewsBrooke Jenkins



Source link

Advertisement

San Francisco, CA

San Francisco supervisors call for hearing into PG&E’s massive blackout

Published

on

San Francisco supervisors call for hearing into PG&E’s massive blackout


San Francisco supervisors are calling for a hearing by the board into the massive power outage in the city last month. 

Calls for a hearing 

What we know:

Advertisement

Supervisor Alan Wong and other lawmakers say residents deserve answers about the outage on December 20, which, at its height, affected about a third of the city. 

Wong added that the credits offered by Pacific Gas and Electric are insufficient to cover lost food, wages and many other disruptions. The utility has offered customers and businesses impacted by the Dec. 20 blackout $200 and $2,500 respectively. 

Advertisement

Wong in a statement said power was gradually restored during the initial outage, but that periodic outages continued for several days and that full restoration was achieved on Dec. 23. 

“This was not a minor inconvenience,” said Sup. Wong. “Families lost heat in the middle of winter. Seniors were stranded in their homes. One of my constituents, a 95-year-old man who relies on a ventilator, had to be rushed to the hospital at 2 a.m. People watched their phones die, worried they would lose their only connection to 911.”

Wong’s office had sent the utility a letter after previous outages on Dec. 7 and Dec. 10, regarding the utility’s lack of reliability. The letter called the frequency of the outages unacceptable. 

Advertisement

PG&E agreed with Wong’s office’s characterization of service specific to the Sunset District and met with the supervisor.  

Despite this development, the root cause of the outage on Dec. 20, that impacted some 130,000 residents citywide, was due to a substation fire near Mission and 8th streets. That fire remains under investigation. 

Advertisement

Wong thanked fellow supervisors Bilal Mahmood, Connie Chan, Stephen Sherrill, Danny Sauter, and Myrna Melgar for co-sponsoring his request. The boardmembers have asked board President Rafael Mandelman to refer their request to the appropriate committee. 

Wong is separately submitting a letter of inquiry to the SF Public Utilities Commission requesting an analysis of cost and implementation of what it would take for San Francisco to have its own publicly-owned electrical grid. 

The other side:

Advertisement

A PG&E spokesperson addressed the board on Tuesday, asking for the hearing to be scheduled after they get results of an independent investigation. 

“We have hired an independent investigator company named Exponent to conduct a root-cause investigation. We are pushing for it to be completed as soon as possible with preliminary results by February which we will share with the city,” said Sarah Yoell with PG&E government affairs. “We are proud of our ongoing investments to serve San Francisco.” 

Advertisement

Yoell assured the utility would be transparent with whatever they find. 

PG&E added that they have met all state requirements and that they have a current Safety Certificate approved by OEIS (Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety). 

Loss of inventory

Advertisement

Abdul Alomari, co-owner of Ember Grill in the Tenderloin, said his business lost electricity during the massive outage. 

“It’s not just me. Across the street, all these restaurants here, nearby businesses. It hurst a lot of people. I’m just one small voice from so many people here that got hurt,” said Alomari. 

He plans to attend the PG&E hearing and said Tenderloin merchants already have a tough time. 

Advertisement

“Less people come here, the Tenderloin, Every single bit of help helps. It doesn’t help that every three months we get a power outage for four hours and we lose business,” said Alomari.

He said compensation from PG&E alone is not the answer. He wants reliability and stability. 

Advertisement

“That’s only short time if we have things like this happen all the time, eventually it’ll off set what we get,” Alomari said. 

The Source: PG&E statement, interviews with the supervisors, interview with a restaurant owner and original reporting by Amber Lee. 

PG&ESan FranciscoNews
Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

San Francisco, CA

San Francisco has a tax plan to save Muni

Published

on

San Francisco has a tax plan to save Muni


A parcel tax plan to rescue Muni would charge most homeowners at least $129 annually if voters approve the policy in November.

The finalized tax scheme, which updates a version presented Dec. 8, comes after weeks of negotiations between city officials and transit advocates.

The plan lowers the levels previously proposed for owners of apartment and condo buildings. They would still pay a $249 base tax up to 5,000 square feet of property, but additional square footage would be taxed at 19.5 cents, versus the previous 30 cents. The tax would be capped at $50,000.

The plan also adds provisions limiting how much of the tax can be passed through to tenants in rent-controlled buildings. Owners of rent-controlled properties would be able to pass through up to 50% of the parcel tax on a unit, with a cap of $65 a year.

Advertisement

These changes bring the total estimated annual tax revenue from $187 million to $183 million and earmark 10% for expanding transit service.

What you pay depends on what kind of property you or your landlord owns. There are three tiers: single-family homes, apartment and condo buildings, and commercial properties.

Owners of single-family homes smaller than 3,000 square feet would pay the base tax of $129 per year. Homes between 3,000 and 5,000 square feet would pay the base tax plus an additional 42 cents per square foot, and any home above 5,000 square feet would be taxed at an added $1.99 per square foot.

Source: Jeremy Chen/The Standard

Commercial landlords would face a $799 base tax for buildings up to 5,000 square feet, with per-square-foot rates that scale with the property size, up to a maximum of $400,000.

The finalized plan was presented by Julie Kirschbaum, director of transportation at the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, at a board meeting Tuesday.

Advertisement

The plan proposed in December was criticized for failing to set aside funds to increase transit service and not including pass-through restrictions for tenants.

The tax is meant to close SFMTA’s $307 million budget gap, which stems from lagging ridership post-pandemic and the expiration of emergency federal funding. Without additional funding, the agency would be forced to drastically cut service. The parcel tax, a regional sales tax measure, and cost-cutting, would all be needed to close the fiscal gap.

The next steps for the parcel tax are creating draft legislation and launching a signature-gathering campaign to place the measure on the ballot.

Any measure would need review by the city attorney’s office. But all stakeholders have agreed on the tax structure presented Tuesday, according to Emma Hare, an aide to Supervisor Myrna Melgar, whose office led negotiations over the tax between advocates and City Hall.

“It’s final,” Hare said. “We just need to write it down.”

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

San Francisco, CA

Claims in lawsuit against Great Highway park dismissed by San Francisco judge

Published

on

Claims in lawsuit against Great Highway park dismissed by San Francisco judge


A San Francisco Superior Court judge dismissed claims in a lawsuit against Proposition K, the ballot measure that permanently cleared traffic from the Great Highway to make way for a two-mile park. 

One advocacy group, Friends of Sunset Dunes, said the legal action affirmed Proposition K’s legal standing and called the lawsuit against the park “wasteful.” 

Advertisement

Proposition K passed with more than 54% of the vote in November 2024, but the debate didn’t end there. The Sunset District supervisor was recalled in the aftermath of that vote by residents in the district who argued their streets would be flooded by traffic and that the decision by voters citywide to close a major thoroughfare in their area was out of touch with the local community. 

What they’re saying:

Friends of Sunset Dunes hailed the judge’s decision in the lawsuit, Boschetto vs the City and County of San Francisco, as a victory. 

Advertisement

“After two ballot measures, two lawsuits, three failed appeals, and dozens of hours of public meetings and untold administrative time and cost, this ruling affirms Proposition K’s legal foundation, and affirms the city’s authority to move forward in creating a permanent coastal park to serve future generations of San Franciscans,” the group said in a statement. 

The group added that their volunteers are working to bring the coastal park to life. Meanwhile, “anti-park zealots continue to waste more public resources in their attempt to overturn the will of the people and close Sunset Dunes.” 

Advertisement

“Now that they’ve lost two lawsuits and two elections, we invite them to accept the will of San Franciscans and work with us to make the most of our collective coastal park,” said Lucas Lux, president of Friends of Sunset Dunes. 

The supervisor for the Sunset District, Alan Wong, doubled down on what he had stated earlier. In a statement on Monday, Wong said he is “prepared to support a ballot initiative to reopen the Great Highway and restore the original compromise.” The compromise he’s referring to is vehicles allowed to drive along the highway on weekdays and a closure to traffic on the weekends. 

Wong, in his statement, added that he’s talked to constituents in his district across the political spectrum and that his values align with the majority of district 4 residents and organizations. 

Advertisement

When he was sworn in last month, Wong indicated he was open to revisiting the issue of reopening the Great Highway to traffic. He also said he voted against Proposition K, which cleared the way and made Sunset Dunes official. 

Engardio’s two-cents

Last September, Joel Engardio was recalled as the Sunset District supervisor in a special election. The primary reason for his ouster was his support of Sunset Dunes, the park which also saw the support of other prominent politicians, including former Mayor London Breed, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and State Senator Scott Wiener. 

Advertisement

Engardio on Monday issued his own statement after the judge dismissed all claims in the lawsuit against Prop. K. 

“It’s time to consider Sunset Dunes settled. Too many people have seen how the park is good for the environment, local businesses, and the physical and mental health of every visitor,” Engardio said. “Future generations will see this as a silly controversy because the park’s benefits far outweigh the fears of traffic jams that never happened. The coast belongs to everyone and it won’t be long before a majority everywhere will embrace the wonderful and magical Sunset Dunes.” 

Advertisement

San FranciscoPoliticsNews



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending