Connect with us

San Francisco, CA

San Francisco State University divests from weapons companies aiding Israel's war on Gaza

Published

on

San Francisco State University divests from weapons companies aiding Israel's war on Gaza


California’s San Francisco State University has begun the process of divesting from four weapons manufacturers currently involved in Israel’s war on Gaza, in a move activists are describing as a “major victory” for Palestinian rights advocacy in the United States.

The announcement by Students for Gaza SFSU comes at a crucial time for the student movement for Palestine, as several universities across the country look to punish and deter students from restarting pro-Palestinian advocacy on campuses, and social media companies like Meta look to censor pro-Palestine activism by student groups on their platforms.

Earlier this week, New York University (NYU) included criticism of Zionism on its list of hate speech, a move that is expected to have a chilling effect on activism targeting Israel. At the University of Michigan, several students were violently arrested as they conducted a sit-in on campus.

Activists say the move to divest from Palantir Technologies, a US-based data analysis firm, arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin, Leonardo, an Italian multinational defence company, as well as construction equipment manufacturer, Caterpillar – corporations described by the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) as “profiting from Gaza the genocide” – came following months of protest and advocacy calling on the university to withdraw investments in portfolios that profit from harming Palestinians.

Advertisement

New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch


Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on
Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters

The demands were part of a nationwide student movement that called for universities to disclose and divest from companies profiting from Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land and its current war on Gaza.

JD Vance’s mentor co-founded company that helps Israel generate ‘kill lists’ of Palestinians in Gaza

Read More »

Noam Perry, the strategic research coordinator with the AFSC, told Middle East Eye the move was significant for a variety of reasons, none more so than “the transformative process the university went through, and the moral stance it committed to” in reaching its decision to change track on the investments.

Advertisement

“It’s not that the university decided to divest from these four companies. It’s that the university decided on a new ethical investment policy, and when it screened its direct investments through this new lens, these are the companies that were flagged. So the policy would make sure the university cannot directly invest in these and other similar companies in the future.

“As far as I know, this has been the most earnest process that a US university has had so far to respond to the divestment demands of its student’s encampment,” Perry said, adding the university had demonstrated it respected students’ voices on how it invests its money.

On Thursday, students at the university held a press conference and rally in the Malcolm X Plaza on campus where they announced the news to fellow students.

Students at San Francisco State University took part in the national student movement for Palestine in the spring (Supplied)

In a statement issued by Students For Gaza, the group behind the push for divestment, the cohort said the university had drafted new language that would institutionalise the move as part of a larger commitment to divest from other corporations that violate human rights.

The group said the new language would be added to the investment policy statement that would centre on human rights.

Advertisement

In April and May this year, students set up an encampment at SFSU, as part of the nationwide call for students to demand universities to divest from corporations seen as complicit in Israel’s war on Gaza.

At SFSU, the encampment organised by Students for Gaza lasted three weeks.

The university then held public negotiations with students – the first in the country to do so.

By the end of the semester, initial agreements with the administration were accepted and the student leadership, faculty, observers, and the administration joined a summer working group to examine the university’s investment policies.

‘Extremely concerning’: Pro-Palestinian students at Columbia and NYU face censorship as semester begins

Advertisement

Read More »

The working group was also joined by community partners from AFSC, an organisation documenting corporate complicity and working on divestment campaigns. 

Max, a spokesperson with Students for Gaza, told MEE students had originally dismantled the encampments “with the goal of continuing to organise and work throughout the summer to meet our demands”.

“We were able to get our demands met, including a divestment from weapons manufacturing and a website that disclosed clear information about our investments,” Max, who offered only his first name, said.

According to AFSC, the four companies targeted are directly involved in Israel’s war on Gaza, which has now resulted in more than 40,000 Palestinians being killed since October 2024.

Advertisement

Perry said that whereas Lockheed Martin, one of the world’s largest weapons manufacturers, has been supplying F16s and F35 jets to the Israeli airforce, the Italian weapons manufacturer, Leonardo, has been providing the Israeli navy with the 76mm guns that have been targeting Gaza from the sea.  

The Denver-based Palantir Technologies has been helping Israel develop “kill lists” for Israel while Caterpillar, infamous for its D9 armoured bulldozers, has been a long-time target for Palestinian activists due to its role in demolishing Palestinian homes and civilian infrastructure.

“These bulldozers have also been crucial for Israel’s ground invasion of the Gaza Strip, accompanying combat troops and paving their way by clearing roads and flattening entire residential neighbourhoods,” Perry added.

Perry said, success notwithstanding, more work still needs to be done at the university.

“It’s important to note that divestment from both Palantir and Caterpillar was not due to SFSU’s commitment to divest from weapons manufacturers, but thanks to the other parts of the university’s investment policy, which now considers internationally-recognised human rights, in addition to the university’s prior commitments to racial justice and environmental issues,” Perry said.

Advertisement

SFSU did not immediately reply to MEE’s request for comment.





Source link

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