Sunset Votes for Miyamoto, Local Schools

By Thomas K. Pendergast

Sunset District voting statistics for the last election are similar to citywide totals, except for the choice of San Francisco county sheriff and a lot of support for Proposition H, the call for local schools which was narrowly defeated.

San Francisco Department of Elections numbers show Paul Miyamoto got 33 percent of the District 4 vote for the office of county sheriff, more than San Francisco Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who got 29 percent. Chris Cunnie placed third, capturing 27 percent of the district’s vote.
In District 7, 38 percent of the ballots were cast for Miyamoto, Cunnie received 32 percent and Mirkarimi got 26 percent.

District 7 also had the distinction of producing the largest voter turnout in the City, with more than 50 percent of registered voters casting ballots. Of San Francisco’s total registered voters, more than 42 percent cast ballots.

On the other hand, the Inner Sunset neighborhood (part of District 5) gave Mirkarimi 46 percent of its votes, while Cunnie received 27 percent and Miyamoto got 23 percent.
San Francisco voters gave Mirkarimi the office with 38 percent of their ballots, while Cunnie got 28 percent and Miyamoto got 27 percent.

Jason McDaniel, an assistant professor of political science at San Francisco State University, said there are several factors that account for this, one of which is the name recognition of Mirkarimi, which worked both for and against him.

McDaniel said Mirkarimi is generally seen as a “progressive” politician. In a liberal city like San Francisco this perception generally helped him, but in the west side – which McDaniel describes as less progressive, with higher income levels and more moderate or conservative voters – it was not an advantage.

But not every voter may have heard of either candidate or had any pre-conceptions about them.
McDaniel suggested that Miyamoto’s name might have been a “voting cue,” which gave him “pan-ethnic Asian voting appeal.” In districts with large Asian populations, Miyamoto’s name alone could have been just the edge he needed.

“If you combine the sense of upper income and more moderate voters, plus you include ethnic considerations, I think that explains that,” said McDaniel of Miyamoto’s good showing on the west side.

The other electoral contest that defied the overall city trend was the district’s strong support for Proposition H, the school district student assignment measure that, as a policy statement, asked the SF Unified School District to change its student assignment system to give local neighborhood schools priority, instead of the current lottery system in which geography is just one of several factors.
Proposition H was defeated by a razor-thin margin, with 50.03 percent of San Francisco voters rejecting it and 49.97 percent in favor.

In District 4, it received 67 percent of the vote. In District 7, it got 60 percent. But, it was rejected in the Inner Sunset neighborhood with 53 percent voting against it.
Corey Cook, an associate professor of political science at the University of San Francisco, said he is not surprised that the measure did better in the Sunset than the rest of the City.
Cook said that throughout San Francisco only one in six voters have school-aged children, which might explain the Inner Sunset’s rejection of it because residents there tend to be younger and single, or at least without families.

“A lot of voters don’t have a kid in school so they have no idea what this lottery system is and how it works,” Cook said.

Throughout most of the City’s west side, however, voters are much more likely to have kids in school and so they are more likely to understand how assigning students to schools actually works compared to those without school-age children. If you combine that with the quality of neighborhood schools on the west side, which, Cook said, are generally considered some of the best in the City, then it is easy to see why the measure did well here.

Cook attributes voter confusion to the way the ballot measure was written because it was not clear how it would change the current lottery system, which does take into account the desires of parents for schools close to home.

“I found H to be utterly confusing in terms of how the voters looked at it,” he said. “They would use the same arguments for both sides, whether they were voting yes or no. They were confused about what the current school assignment system does and how (Prop. H) changes what we have now. It was unclear to many of them if they would be forced to send their kids to neighborhood schools.”

In all other respects the choices of district and west side voters resembled the rest of the City, although with some variations.

Incumbent and appointed Mayor Ed Lee won his first election by garnering more than 30 percent of the citywide vote; Supervisor John Avalos placed second with 19 percent and City Attorney Dennis Herrera came in third with 11 percent.

In District 4, Lee got 44 percent of the vote, state Sen. Leland Yee came in second with 11 percent and Avalos got 10 percent. Citywide, Yee came in fifth with 8 percent of the vote.
In District 7, Lee received 35 percent of the vote, Avalos placed second with 11 percent and Herrera placed third with 10 percent.

In the Inner Sunset neighborhood, Lee just barely topped Avalos, receiving slightly more than 25 percent of the vote while Avalos got just under the same percent. Herrera placed third with 13 percent.

In the district attorney’s race, incumbent George Gascon won with 42 percent of the citywide vote, David Onek placed second with 24 percent and Sharmin Bock was third with 21 percent.
Gascon also won in District 4 with 44 percent of the vote, Bock placed second with 24 percent and Onek placed third with 14 percent.

In District 7, Gascon won with 46 percent of the vote, Bock placed second with 19 percent and Onek third with 16 percent.

Proposition A, a $531 million bond measure to fund repairs at SFUSD school facilities, passed with 71 percent of the vote citywide. In District 4 it passed with 60 percent. In District 7 it passed with 63 percent.

Proposition B, a $248 million bond to fix potholes and repave streets, passed decisively with 68 percent of the vote citywide. In District 4 and District 7 it passed with 58 percent of the vote.
Proposition C, the pension reform measure pushed by Mayor Lee and city worker unions, passed with just under 69 percent of the vote citywide. In District 4 it passed with 66 percent of the vote and in District 7 it passed with 65 percent.

A competing pension reform measure, Prop. D, lost the citywide vote with 66 percent voting against it. In District 4 it lost with 63 percent and in District 7 it was rejected by 62 percent.
Proposition E, which would have amended the City Charter to allow the Board of Supervisors and the mayor to amend or repeal ordinances and policies that the voters have approved, lost citywide by 67 percent. In District 4 it lost with 69 percent voting against it and it lost in District 7 with 68 percent against.

Proposition F, which would have changed lobbying rules, lost the citywide vote by 56 percent. In District 4 it lost by 59 percent and in District 7 it lost by 55 percent.

Proposition G, which would have raised the city sales tax by one-half of a percentage point, lost the citywide vote by 54 percent. In District 4, it was defeated by 61 percent and in District 7 it lost by 63 percent.

Supervisor Shines Spotlight on Muni’s Light Rail Service

By Ed Moy

Supervisor Carmen Chu addressed concerns over Muni light rail service in the Sunset District during a hearing at the SF Board of Supervisors’ City Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee in October.
Chu said the hearing was productive because it included a review of performance data gathered on Muni light rail service for the N-Judah and L-Taraval lines between February and April of this year. Her office is analyzing the data.
Among the concerns Chu covered were the number and reasons for missed train runs, on-time performance, frequency and causes of train switchbacks, and how the SFMTA plans to address those issues.
Muni management claims it is working to alleviate or minimize disruptions to the public.
Chu pointed out that a key reason for delays along the N-Judah and L-Taraval lines is a recurring problem with malfunctioning stairs aboard the light rail trains coming out of the downtown tunnel to street level. She stated that repairs have been on-going to correct the stair problems.
She also stated that a lack of qualified Muni light rail operators will be addressed by SFMTA through the hiring and training of new operators.
Chu said the new N-Judah shuttle buses operating as a downtown express bus route have helped improve service during peak commute hours.
Earlier this year, Chu addressed the issue of Muni light rail train switchbacks, a policy of “short-turning or early turn-around” of trains headed to the Outer Sunset, with the City Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee.
The early train turnarounds are a cause for concern for many elderly and disabled passengers, who are sometimes left stranded along the N-Judah line waiting for the next train to arrive in order to continue with their commute.
Other topics up for review included the bus service along 19th Avenue and Sunset Boulevard on Muni’s 28 and 29 bus lines.
Chu said Muni conducted an extensive analysis of the two bus lines to monitor on-time performance, frequency and passenger loads. The data compiled is being utilized to improve the service along both the 28-line and 29-lines, which run along the two major commute corridors linking the Sunset and Richmond districts.
Sunset and Parkside residents with Muni concerns can contact Chu at (415) 554-7460 or chustaff@sfgov.org.

New Book about Playland at the Beach Covers Early Years

By Jonathan Farrell

Memories of Playland at Ocean Beach were alive and well as people gathered Aug. 30 to listen to historian and author James R. Smith talk about his new book, “San Francisco’s Playland at the Beach – The Early Years.”

The downstairs auditorium of St. Phillips Church on Diamond Street was filled almost to capacity as people from all parts of the City attended Smith’s presentation, sponsored by the SF History Association. Displaying old photographs of Playland from his book on a projector screen he pointed out the attractions, like “The Big Dipper,” “Ship of Joy,” “Dogem,” “The Chutes,” “Midway,”  “Topsy’s  Roost” and “The Fun House,” with old “Laughing Sal.”

“Trying to gathering information was not too difficult because everyone has so many memories of Playland,” Smith said.

When he was a kid, Playland was so much fun because it was a place for youth to roam and families could afford to go there with no worries financially because of the low cost of admission.

Smith explained that in the early years, before Playland became that special place to San Franciscans, it was simply referred to as “the concessions.” Concessions emerged in the 1880s as a series of beer stands and other attractions to draw people out to the beach on the weekends. The Cliff House and Sutro Baths were popular so the concessions were a welcome addition that grew and evolved over time.

The Great Earthquake of 1906 delayed the arrival of a carousel build by Loof & Sons. When Loof had a falling out with the owners of an amusement park in Seattle because they served alcohol, so he decided to remove their installation and replant it in San Francisco. By 1915, when the Panama-Pacific Exposition was celebrated, a full amusement park with a special carousel – “The Hippodrome” – was constructed.

San Franciscans were enjoying updated incarnations of The Chutes and other rides and in 1922 when “The Big Dipper” roller coaster was introduced with more than 3,000 feet of track. Eventually Loof and partner John Friedle let the amusement park be taken over by an enterprising concessionaire from the Midwest by the name of George K. Whitney.

Loof and Friedle remained in the background, with Friedle making regular appearances at events. Some rumors claim that Friedle had been swindled as there are no records of a sale. Yet, Smith mentions in the book that Friedle was upset by lawsuits because many accidents did happen back then. It is surmised that because of this fear of lawsuits, Friedle sought the help of Whitney and others. As the Great Depression hit, Whitney and his brother Leo purchased most of the land in the amusement park as individual concessions folded or were struggling.

By 1930, the amusement park had nearly 100 concessions and rides and was officially known as Whitney’s at The Beach. Yet it was advertised as “Playland at the Beach.”

People at the lecture had dozens of questions, all of which Smith was happy to answer, including: “Was there more than one “Laughing Sal? What happened to her?” Actually spelled as “Laffing Sal,” Smith said she had lots of sisters and even a few brothers, named Sam, all spelled with the name “laffing.”

Some in the audience were a bit disappointed because the book looks at the early years, not the later ones.

“This book is more about Playland before any of us here knew it,” said John Freeman. “We all remember the Playland from the 1940s until it closed in 1972.”

Many in the audience live or had lived in the Sunset and Richmond districts and have happy memories of the amusement park.

“While I have some good memories of Playland, I was strong-arm mugged for pocket change there when I was 12,” said former Richmond resident John Martini.

Playland’s glory days were gone by the 1960s. Larger venues, such as “theme parks” like Disneyland, lured people away from the local attractions and Playland fell into decay.

“The park was sold to a developer. At that time, the City didn’t care much about preserving its history,” Smith said.

Smith is preparing a follow-up book entitled “San Francisco’s Playland at the Beach: The Golden Years,” which is the Playland that most Baby Boomers remember.

For more information or to obtain a copy of “San Francisco’s Playland at the Beach – The Early Years,” go to the website at CravenStreetBooks.com.

Mayoral candidates battle for district’s votes

by Thomas K. Pendergast

Mayoral candidates came together at a candidates’ forum in an effort to win Richmond District votes. They explained their positions on several local issues, including the Geary Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) proposal and the needs of small businesses in the Richmond District. The forum was held at the Richmond Recreation Center on Sept. 19.
The candidates were asked about their opinions concerning the proposed synthetic turf soccer fields at the west end of Golden Gate Park. They were almost unanimous in their opposition to the new turf and outdoor lighting stands that would light the fields up at night. Only Bevan Dufty defended the proposal, citing the dearth of playing fields for youth and adult soccer players in the City.
Concerning the proposed re-claimed water facility that would also be located in the west end of the park, the candidates were unanimous in their support for keeping the facility out of the park.
Concerning the Geary BRT, state Sen. Leland Yee said he supports the Geary BRT project but would proceed with caution.
“There are concerns on the part of businesses that if we move ahead with this particular project it is going to create even more havoc along the Geary corridor and as a result devastate even more of the business community,” Yee told a standing-room-only crowd. “There are many individuals, residents, who are absolutely concerned about the congestion that’s going to be created if in fact you take a lane out of the lanes that are currently existing on Geary and dedicate it to buses. What is important for the mayor to do, and I will do, is ensure that different elements that are important to our community … we all understand what those problems are and make sure the BRT is going to deal with all of those issues.”
San Francisco’s Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting said he would support either the Geary BRT or an alternative plan, the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP), which would be less expensive. This plan would include relatively inexpensive changes to the Muni 38 bus line, including self-service fare collection, low-floor buses, traffic signal preemption and optimizing bus stop locations.
Local entrepreneur Joanna Rees said she would support the TEP proposal.
“We need to be continually looking for ways to improve service on Geary Boulevard,” said Rees. “If we have a limited-stop bus line, we should be testing, should it stop every 20 blocks, should it stop every 25 blocks? What happens to load? How does that improve travel time? What happens when we change the timing of the lights? How about having dedicated lanes on the road? This is the stuff that we need to continually do.”
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said he would support both plans.
“We know that the 38 line is incredibly overtaxed,” Herrera said. “I happen to believe that the Transit Effective­ness Project provides a great strategic vision as to changes that we have to make to not only benefit the Muni system citywide but also the 38 Geary. I also believe that the BRT is a great step.”
Tony Hall is running as an independent candidate. He said he favors implementing the TEP plan.
“You could put 15 different alternatives on how to approach rapid transit on Geary Boulevard, but the two things you cannot forget about are: How does it affect the residents who live here? and: How does it affect small businesses?” Hall said. “What­ever plan comes up has to start with those two things in mind.”
Dufty, a former San Francisco supervisor, also threw his support behind the TEP and Geary BRT projects.
“At this point, I do support the TEP and I do support Bus Rapid Transit if it’s done right,” he said. “It’s got to be done the right way, with your district supervisor and the community pulling together. Ultimately, if there is a desire in this part of town to have an enhanced transportation service, we ought to have the vision to be able to go after it.”
The current president of the SF Board of Supervisors, David Chiu, said he favors both plans.
“I do think there’s a way to do (the Geary BRT) that will make sure we can really build the type of transit system out here in the Richmond that we should have envisioned many, many years ago. I also have been a huge proponent of the Transit Effectiveness Project,” Chiu said. “We do have in a lot of parts of the City an awful lot of bus stops, particularly when we get into the downtown part of San Francisco, which I represent. I happen to have two bus stops on my block. We’ve got to figure out a more efficient way to do that.”
Green Party candidate Terry Baum also supports both Muni projects.
“We need transit so great, you don’t even want your car. The future of this planet depends on us getting out of our cars more and more. We know that. We want to have this beautiful little jewel of a planet with good air to breath and the oceans not washing over whole continents for our children and our grandchildren. One of the things we have to do is to have truly great public transit so we are living in a more sustainable way.”
SF Supervisor John Avalos supports both plans but thinks the TEP should be implemented first.
“We need a Bus Rapid Transit system along Geary Boulevard. I support that idea,” Avalos said. “I think that’s more of a medium-term solution and I do support the Transit Effectiveness Project as well. There are so many solutions to our needs around transit in the TEP that it needs to get enacted right away.”
Public Defender Jeff Adachi was the only candidate at the forum to call for a third option: a Muni light rail line going down Geary Boulevard.
“I think it would really help the businesses along Geary if we had a light rail. That’s really a concern because people don’t come out here as much as they should. You’ve got great businesses out here, including restaurants. You saw that with the (Outside Lands) festival and all the folks that were out in this area, utilizing services and patronizing businesses. We need to have more of that and the only way to do that is to have a dedicated light rail.”
To help spur economic growth along the Geary Boulevard commercial corridor, between Arguello and 34th Avenue, three candidates, Avalos, Baum and Paul Currier, argued for amending the City Charter to start the creation of a city-owned bank.
“The idea of a community bank simply takes a City Charter motion and we need a California state charter as a county. That’s all and then we’re off to the races,” said Currier. “We need a small business development corporation that’s funded by our bank to handle our investments. We could go ahead and fund this plan right here with our own small business development program, which would help many districts.”
Baum concurs.
“Right now the Bank of America gets the profits from all of our pension funds. If we had that municipal bank we would get the profits. It could be lent to small businesses in the Rich­mond and also to individuals in San Francisco,” Baum said. “I also would start, as mayor, Clean Power SF. This would build all over the City very small installations of renewable power – wind and solar. We could start it right now if we had the political will. It could create up to a thousand new green jobs. It would pay for itself in 10 years and then the City would get the income from selling power to residents.”
Rees said she would push to eliminate some of the tax and permit burdens for small- and medium-sized businesses.
“I think it’s interesting people are talking about getting loans for small businesses. We need loans to pay for all the burdens that the City puts on us for licenses and permits,” said Rees. “We need to alleviate that burden on our businesses. I do agree with removing the employee payroll tax systemically across the City. We have to get much more consumer friendly about parking, and the way we manage parking. Our parking rates are too high.”
The forum was sponsored by the Planning Association for the Richmond, Richmond Reform Democratic Club, New America Media, Chinese American Voter Education Committee, Coalition to Save Ocean Beach, Friends of Sutro Heights Park and the Clement and Geary merchants’ associations.
Two candidates, Michela Alioto-Pier and SF Mayor Ed Lee, were invited to the forum but did not attend, citing previous commitments.

Residents express concerns about concerts in Park

by Jonathan Farrell

More than 30 local residents gathered at the Richmond Station Sept. 20 to voice concerns about the Outside Lands Music Festival, which was held in August in Golden Gate Park. Those who showed up in the community room to speak with festival promoter Allen Scott included SF Recreation and Park Department representatives, SF Police Department officers, Richmond Station Capt. Keith Sanford and members of the public.

Sanford said this was his first experience with the Outside Lands Music Festival and that he was very impressed with the three-day concert.
Scott, vice president of Another Planet Entertainment, which puts on the Outside Lands concert, said a lot of planning went into the event and that work crews were very respectful of the neighborhood.

“Much of the protocol and procedures we followed were based upon requests of the residents, through the series of community meetings we had in the past,” Scott said.

In its third year, the concert has become a major annual event by music fans from around the country. Back in the summer of 2008, Scott met with Rec. and Park representatives to explain the purpose of the event (a celebration of music), which now draws crowds in the thousands.

Concert promoters said all three days of the concert were sold out, with some 60,000 tickets being sold for each day.
But some residents fear it will eventually outgrow the park.

Richmond District resident Sue Fry, while she admitted she liked the concert, said the loud noise from the concert needed to end earlier, especially on Sunday.

“The following day is school and to have concerts until after 9 p.m., with crowds still excited as they disperse, makes it difficult for school kids to get their sleep,” she said.

Fry asked if it was possible for Another Planet to shorten the event from three to two days and to perhaps have only day-time performances, with concerts ending at sundown?

Scott said that scenario would not work because some of the best headliners only perform at night.

“To have this festival be a success we need to have headliners. Otherwise, it will not work,” he said.

Richmond resident Christine Hall questioned the data and wondered if it might be possible to have the Outside Lands Music Festival elsewhere.

Scott noted that based upon ticket sales many of the attendees were from the City and surrounding Bay Area.

The SF Chronicle agreed, noting: “Despite its mammoth scale, this was still a distinctly local event.”

Scott said Golden Gate Park was a perfect venue and reiterated that every precaution had been taken, and will continue to be taken, for concerts in the future.
“There were no major incidents, no accidents or violence,” Sanford said. “Other than some complaints about noise, all went well.”
Denny Kern, director of operations for Rec. and Park, assured the public that the concert was closely watched.
“We monitor and do site inspections,” Kern said.
Kenneth Woo, who lives on Fulton Street, said revelers who defecated near his car “were indifferent.”
Sanford said the police department does not take policing lightly, but that with such crowds responses to complaints or incidents must be evaluated in order of priority. While defecation and vomiting in public is offensive, it is not life-threatening or done with intent to destroy property.
Nicholas Kinsey, a representative of the Rec. and Park Department, said events like Outside Lands are a major revenue sources for the department.
“If we did not have events like this, we would have to consider employee lay-offs,” Kinsey said.
Kern said the approximately $1 million paid by festival promoters goes into the department’s maintenance fund.
Fry and others were curious as to how much the event earned after paying all overhead costs, but Scott would not say.
After two hours of discussion, Sanford recommended the meeting be continued to another time.

Sunset, GG Park Haunted by Rash of Unsolved Murders

By Thomas K. Pendergast

Sometime during the last few years, Jason De La Cruz, Derek Butch, Brandon Lee Evans, Robert Mathis, Xiao “Ben” Luo and Hung Pham all became murder victims in either the Sunset District or Golden Gate Park.

Yet, they have something else in common: Homicide inspectors have not found a killer for any of them.

Since 2005, there have been at least 11 homicides in the district or park, resulting in arrests in five of those cases.

On the evening of March 29, 2008, Jason De La Cruz, 31, of Daly City, was a manager at a Verizon Wireless store at the Westlake Shopping Center. That night he was celebrating a month of good sales with his crew outside Irving Pizza, located near the intersection of 19th Avenue and Irving Street, along with a few employees, including 23-year-old Derek Butch.

De La Cruz was buying pizzas for “team J.D.,” witnesses recalled, when an unknown customer demanded a free pizza for himself as well. According to a report in the SF Chronicle, an argument ensued but seemed to cool off after the unknown customer’s friend told De La Cruz his friend was drunk and to ignore him.

Yet, moments later a man believed to be associated with the drunk man and his friend got out of a parked car and shot De La Cruz and Butch, killing them both.

Charges were later filed but then dropped against two people in the crowd that night because of conflicting witness testimony, according to media reports.

Police say they are now seeking Eric Siu, 22, of San Francisco as a “person of interest” in the double-homicide, after a cashier at the pizza parlor identified him as the shooter in a photo lineup.

Siu reportedly disappeared the morning of the shooting and has not been seen since.

Hung Pham, 46, of Daly City, was found dead late in the evening of Oct. 13, 2008, at the intersection of 17th Avenue and Noriega Street. Police say they found Pham’s body in the driver’s seat of a black Mercedes SUV with numerous gunshot wounds. He appeared to have been shot through the car window and was pronounced dead at the scene.

Brandon Lee Evans was 20 years old and had moved to the City from San Diego only three weeks before he was shot to death in Golden Gate Park, near the horseshoe pits, on Nov. 29, 2008.

Friends he was with that night said Evans left them at the horseshoe pits about 10:30 p.m. to get his cell phone from his car, but he never made it back.

Moments after he left, they heard shots.

Media reports say police found no weapon and there were no eyewitnesses but numerous bullet casings were found near a footpath close by.

A black sweatshirt he was wearing was missing, his car was unlocked, and his wallet was inside, untouched. So far, there is no evidence that a fight, a gang connection or drug sales were involved.

There are also no suspects at this time.

The body of Robert Mathis, 31, of San Francisco was found on June 17, 2009. He had been stabbed to death in the parking lot of Kezar Stadium, located just yards away from the Park Police Station. There have been no arrests in the case.

On Jan. 27, 2010, Xiao “Ben” Xiong Luo, 44, was gunned down in his home at 2432 Moraga St. just before 6 p.m. Luo was shot once in the chest during what police believe was a home-invasion robbery.

Nine people in the house were found tied up, with only Luo being killed.

Security cameras mounted outside the house show two men entering the place. Surviving witnesses inside the house described the two men as being “Latino,” although images from the security camera makes it difficult to be certain of their race.

The SFPD has confirmed that all of the aforementioned killings are open homicide cases actively being investigated, that no arrests have been made and because of that they will not release further information about any of them.

Police have made arrests, however, in five cases, at least two of which resulted in convictions.

On March 1, 2005, Christine Chan, 22, of Daly City was shot to death “execution style” during what appeared to be a marijuana sale but was in reality a set-up for a robbery.

Her boyfriend, George Tang, 22 at the time, of Daly City was seriously wounded.

According to media reports of court testimony, Tang intended to sell two pounds of marijuana to Chad Dias, 23, of San Francisco, at the intersection of 18th Avenue and Ortega Street.

Dias, however, intended to rob Tang of the marijuana so he pulled out a gun.

A jury found him guilty of first-degree murder, after testimony that he killed Chan because she was a witness.

On Dec. 12, 2008, Dias was sentenced to 32 years to life in prison.

In November 2005, Taff Michel, 27, was shot to death while trying to warn someone else about an armed robber. Witnesses said two men, one with a pistol, approached a woman from behind who was walking along Kezar Drive in Golden Gate Park. They turned out to be brothers from Redmond, Washington, and they were found by police officers later that evening hiding in the bushes of Golden Gate Park.

The triggerman, Travis Tackett, 22 at the time, eventually pled guilty and was sentenced to 12 years in state prison. His brother, William Tackett, then 24, got a two-year sentence.

On April 28, 2008, Anton Bajjalieh, 53 at the time, was arrested for stabbing his 48-year-old brother Isam Bajjalieh to death during an argument in a house on the 1600 block of 26th Avenue.

Bajjalieh has pled not guilty and is awaiting trial.

On Feb. 17, 2010, Cuong Lu, 35, of San Francisco was shot to death outside the Pho Huynh Hiep 2 noodle restaurant on Irving Street, between 19th and 20th avenues.

Witnesses said Lu got into an argument with Bao Luu, 39 at the time, while inside the restaurant. Eventually, the argument spilled outside.

Two SFPD patrol officers coming up the street happened to witness the slaying and allegedly saw Luu holding a semi-automatic handgun. He was disarmed and placed under arrest.

Luu has pled not guilty and is awaiting trial.

On Independence Day, July 4, 2010, Adam Noyes, 25, of Vermont, was stabbed to death in Golden Gate Park. Police say the suspect, Richard Ray, 65, of San Francisco flagged officers down near the Conservatory of Flowers at about 9:40 p.m. and told them about stabbing Noyes. Ray claimed he stabbed Noyes in self-defense. Media reports say a knife was found on Noyes’ body but he also had defensive wounds, as did Ray. Ray has pled not guilty and is awaiting trial.

Critics Not Happy About Lake Merced Plan

By Thomas K. Pendergast

A proposed Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) between the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department drew fire from critics recently when it went public. The document caused some local community organizers to call it more of the same reason why Lake Merced has deteriorated so much over the years.
Docks are rotting below the water line of the 272-acre freshwater lake and fish stocks are low; the old boathouse is falling apart and there has not been a bait and tackle supply store there in years.
The five-page draft MOU gives overall management of the area to the PUC, with the specific task of maintaining water quality. Managing recreation activities, gardening and maintaining the building facilities, including dealing with concession leases, will continue to be done by Rec. and Park, with some money for those tasks coming from the PUC.
When Steven R. Ritchie of the PUC presented the draft MOU to an audience of about 40 people in the clubhouse at the Harding Park Golf Course on July 19, he addressed concerns that budget cuts to Rec. and Park would leave them without enough money to properly staff Lake Merced or ensure good maintenance, causing its deterioration to continue.
“The responsibility of the PUC is to make sure that the lake is managed properly and manages it,” said Ritchie. “Does that mean managing all of the individual pieces for recreational purposes? Not necessarily. I think that’s something we need to count on Rec. and Park to do, but we need to hold them accountable for the management of those. I think that is something that we are continuing to do much more of than we’ve ever done before.”
Dick Morten, a local citizen, questioned Ritchie on whether Rec. and Park had the resources to fix up the lake and keep up with maintenance.
“I don’t see them, with their budget constraints, with all the operational problems that they have, being able to devote any resources,” said Morten. “I just don’t have the confidence in them.”
Jerry Cadagan, a member of the Committee to Save Lake Merced, emphasized the issue of accountability and expressed doubt about the draft MOUs approach to holding the department responsible.
“We want accountability and what this MOU describes is status quo,” said Cadagan. “When people have a question about ‘why isn’t there a fishing concession?’ or ‘why is somebody pushing nutrients into the lake?’ who do you ask? Who do you talk to? We want a single point of accountability.”
After the meeting, Ritchie gave specifics on how the PUC will enforce accountability for Rec. and Park.
“Our Natural Resources and Land Management Division, they’re the folks who manage our watersheds outside of San Francisco and they’ll get responsibility here,” he said. “They’re used to that characteristic of having to enforce rules and regulations for land use. They would hold Rec. and Park accountable if they’re not holding up their end of the bargain.”
One of the more expensive problems is the dilapidated state of the boathouse. Some in the audience thought it was too far gone to save and it would be better to tear it down and build a new one. Ritchie, however, said the money for that is not there so the plan at this point is for the PUC to fix up the building to the point where it is habitable.
During the meeting, Ritchie confirmed that it would take between $2 million and $3 million to completely renovate the building and bring a restaurant into the boathouse.
“We don’t have that much money available,” he said. “We’re bringing it up to a blank slate with operable bathrooms and something that then is presentable so that you can actually look at for further fix-up to make it truly useful.”
Ritchie said the PUC has about $1.1 million set aside for making the boathouse operable.
A representative of Rec. and Park said the activities that will be offered are essentially the same as now, including rowing, kayaking, sailing and fishing.
Morten asked who is going to manage all these activities?
Lev Kushner, Rec. and Park’s assistant director of strategic partnerships, said the Rec. and Park Department is going to run waterfront recreational activities.
“With who?” Morten responded. “Where are you going to get the staff when you can’t keep open existing facilities?”
“That’s what you’re hearing me say – we have staff,” Kushner explained. “We have a new waterfront recreational director.”
Connie Chan, director of public affairs for Rec. and Park, elaborated on the department’s staffing at Lake Merced.
“We currently have three people coordinating Rec and Park’s waterfront recreational activities citywide,” she said. “Our fall programming will include activities at Lake Merced and the rest of the City. Recreation staff will be assigned at Lake Merced to provide water sports programming during specific time slots. Under our new recreation model, our recreation staffs are assigned to many locations based on their recreational expertise.”
Suzanne Gautier, a spokesperson for the PUC, confirmed that under the draft MOU, her agency continues to provide about $300,000 annually to Rec. and Park for operating and maintaining restrooms, paths, benches, picnic areas, security structures and providing trash collection and custodial services.
“There’s a lot of frustration that people would like to see improvements take place and they haven’t happened nearly as fast as anyone would like,” Ritchie said after the meeting.

 

Beach fires limited on bad air days

To preserve air quality during “Spare the Air” days, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) has banned beach fires on Spare the Air Days. The action was taken in response to beachgoers’ concerns that beach fires were leaving unsafe debris on the beach, as well as concerns about smoke blowing into neighborhood homes.

Instead of banning fires, Golden Gate National Parks joined several organizations in a creative partnership to install artistic fire rings on portions of the beach away from neighborhood homes. Those organizations, Surfrider Foundation, Burners Without Borders, Ocean Beach Foundation and Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, are working with GGNRA to allow fires to continue.

Burners Without Borders has donated some artistic fire rings so that fires can be physically contained and the Surfrider, Ocean Beach Foundation and Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy are organizing beach cleanups. Beach fires are only allowed on Ocean Beach in authorized fire pits, between stairwells 15 Ð 20.

For more information, call (415) 561-5505 or go to the Web site at http://www.nps.gov.

What Does Your Bag Say

Nobody wants to be passŽ. You’ve ditched the shoulder pads and stilettos. The parachute pants and splatter painted T-shirt are long gone. Hopefully you don’t still think it’s OK to use disposable bags like they’re going out of style.Oh wait, they already are out of style.

Haven’t you seen the array of practical, cute, hip, funky and functional reusable bags so many people are sporting these days? Next time you go to the mall, pharmacy, grocery store or any other store, take a look at the bags folks are carrying. Are folks bringing their own bags to save sea turtles, or is it more of a fashion statement? No matter. The trendsetters know: reusable bags say you’re both “chic” and “ecosavvy.”

But the laggards who still entertain the “paper or plastic?” debate deserve more than just a ticket from the fashion police. They need a reality check because we’ve all seen it. The plastic bag caught in a wind eddy, swirling around in place in front of our house or favorite beach, finding eventual rest in the branches of a tree.

Where do they all come from and where do they all go? Surely nobody tosses them out of the car window. Yet despite efforts to put them in the trash, recycle or reuse them, they remain among the most menacing of urban escapees. Flying out of dumpsters, whizzing out of garbage trucks, and breaking away from landfills, they are fouling more than just our image.

They clog sewer drains and aren’t accepted in the blue recycling carts in San Francisco because they get tangled on the sorting machinery at the recycling facility. If the fact that plastic bags are difficult to recycle doesn’t motivate you to bring your own bags, there are other motivators.

The Pacific Gyre is a floating mass of plastic and bag debris the size of Texas and 300 feet deep. Around the planet, more than 100,000 marine animals die every year from plastic entanglement Ð and a good portion of the plastic that kills them is plastic bags.

Besides demonstrating your fashion sense and caring about marine life, bringing your own bag also helps fight global warming. Saying “no” to plastic bags reduces the amount of fossil fuels we use. Saying “no” to paper bags conserves the trees that help moderate the Earth’s climate.

So, start a habit you’ll be proud to flaunt: remember your own bags every time you shop.

The next time someone asks if you want a paper or plastic bag, proudly say, “Neither, I brought my own.” Because doing good also looks good.

Deanna Simon works as an outreach specialist with the SF Department of the Environment.

Supervisor Carmen Chu: School Assignment Process

After receiving many phone calls and letters from concerned parents regarding their child’s school assignment, I requested a public hearing at the City Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee to discuss the San Francisco Unified School District’s school admissions process.

Currently, the school district uses a “diversity index” to place students, which can sometimes result in a student being assigned to a school far from their home in an effort to create diversity at schools. Parents at the hearing expressed concerns that their children would have to spend hours riding public transportation to and from school.

At the hearing on April 17, members of the school district gave an overview of the admissions process and discussed some results of the current school assignment system.

Deputy Superintendent Myong Leigh indicated that the school district, with School Board approval, will begin the process of reviewing and evaluating the school assignment system. Please contact our office if you are interested in this issue so we can include you in future joint efforts with the school district and School Board.

Ocean Beach Renovation in the Works
Many will agree that we can improve conditions along Ocean Beach. In an attempt to do so, the Ocean Beach Vision Council was formed with the goal of developing a set of planning alternatives, with a 30 to 50 year horizon, for the beach.

I will be working jointly with other members of the council, which includes Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) Superintendent Brian O’Neill, Jared Blumenfeld of the Department of the Environment, Scott Preston of the environment-based planning and design firm EDAW, Clark Manus of Heller Manus Architects, Jean Rogers of ARUP, Lara Truppelli of the Beach Chalet Brewery and Restaurant, and Gabriel Metcalf of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association.

In the upcoming months, I will work with the council to ensure community input for a master plan for Ocean Beach. It is crucial to make sure the council’s plans are developed with and supported by the community.

For more information or to offer feedback, call my office at (415) 554-7460 or e-mail chustaff@sfgov.org.

Carmen Chu is a San Francisco supervisor representing District 4.