Supporters of a June ballot measure that could curb high-rise development along San Francisco’s waterfront alleged Monday that Supervisor Scott Wiener has potentially misused public resources in requesting city departments provide a detailed analysis of its impacts.
Jon Golinger, a campaign manager for the June 3 measure, used a public records request to obtain text messages and emails between Wiener and Gabriel Metcalf, who heads SPUR, an urban policy think tank, and Jack Bair, the San Francisco Giants senior vice president and a former deputy city attorney.
[jump]
The communications include discussions about the analysis request and strategize for its approval. The ballot measure, if passed, would impact the Giants’ plans to build a development behind its ballpark, for which they would need to increase the height limits. The organization is also involved in a lawsuit arguing to strike the measure, which would require that voters approve any height-limit increases for waterfront development, from the ballot.
“It’s a pretty strong indicator public resources were used here to oppose a ballot measure,” Golinger said of the communications.
(Scroll down to read the letter Jon Golinger sent to the San Francisco City Attorney's Office about his allegations.)
State and local laws prohibit the use of public resources for political purposes. He said there “is a really bad smell about it.”
In a Feb. 10 text message, Wiener said to Metcalf, “Resolution look ok? We've made some edits but it's the same in substance.”
In a Feb. 11 text message, Wiener texts Bair “Now is the time to start lobbying. I've heard that eric mar is voting against. I suggest calling Jane, Norman, Malia, and London.” Bair text messages back, “Okay, I will work with Gabe and others. Thanks, Jack.”
In an email exchange Bair provides Wiener with more details on a state code allowing for the more detailed analysis request. The analysis would go beyond the standard analysis conducted by the Department of Elections on such measures. And Bair also provides what appear to be talking points to justify the request.
Wiener called Golinger’s argument “nonsensical.”
“I can talk to whoever I want to about any piece of legislation I do,” Wiener said.
He suggested Golinger would rather have him write the legislation “magically” without consulting Metcalf, who Wiener called “one of the foremost land use, housing experts in this city and I work with him in a lot of different things.” Wiener said he did not use public resources for political activities as Golinger suggests.
“None whatsoever. I say that with total confidence,” Wiener said.
The City Attorney’s Office declined to discuss the matter. It also would not confirm or deny if there was an investigation. A 2013 city attorney legal opinion said that “City officers and employees may lawfully use City resources (where budgeted for such a purpose and otherwise authorized) to investigate and evaluate objectively the potential impact of a ballot measure on City operations.”
The Board of Supervisors is voting Tuesday on Wiener’s special analysis of the waterfront height limit ballot measure. A board member could request that it be sent to a board committee for further debate.
As for the requested analysis, Wiener said, “All it does is to ask for city departments to provide objective analysis and information about this measure … so the public has as much information as possible and then people can draw whatever opinion they want.”
If the waterfront measure is approved, proposed developments that exceed current Port of San Francisco height regulations would be forced to receive voter approval. Waterfront height limits along the 7.5 miles generally range from 40 to 105 feet.
[pdf-1]
