Redevelopment plan’s critics sue

Opponents of a plan to overhaul 1,300 acres of San Francisco’s southeast sector filed a lawsuit against The City in an effort to stall the redevelopment effort and put the plan before San Francisco voters.

In June, Mayor Gavin Newsom put his signature of approval on the $188 million Bayview-Hunters Point redevelopment proposal, which includes 3,700 units of market-rate and affordable housing, new parks and improvements to street and commercial areas.

Shortly thereafter, critics of the redevelopment effort began circulating a referendum petition, saying the 30-year plan will take control of local development from the area’s mostly African-American residents, eventually displacing them as more affluent city residents move in.

In September, The City’s Department of Elections confirmed that the campaign had gathered enough valid signatures — more than the 21,615 required — to put the referendum on the ballot.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, however, subsequently issued a legal opinion that the petition was invalid because, although it included the city ordinance about the redevelopment plan, it omitted the redevelopment plan itself. The city attorney said he reviewed the petition at the request of Newsom and other city officials, including Sophie Maxwell, the southeast district supervisor who championed the redevelopment effort.

“If you were to follow the city attorney’s logic, he’s saying we should have attached, physically, a mini telephone book to each petition,” said the campaign’s coordinator, Brian O’Flynn. “The voters are being disenfranchised from their right.”

A referendum petition on a redevelopment plan needs to include the redevelopment plan, City Attorney’s Office spokesman Matt Dorsey said, while conceding that attaching the 57-page plan could be considered burdensome.

“There may be a very good point about why the law should be changed, but they should take that to the Legislature,” Dorsey said. “The role of the city attorney is to call it right, and let the chips fall where they may, even if it’s politically unpopular.”

Supporters of the redevelopment plan say it has been nearly a decade in the making, and in that time there has been plenty of opportunity for community input and involvement.

A referendum offers voters the power to nullify an ordinance approved by the Board of Supervisors. Once the required signatures are filed — within 90 days after signed into law by the mayor — the city legislators are then required to either reject the ordinance or present it to the voters.

beslinger@examiner.com

Bay Area NewsLocal

If you find our journalism valuable and relevant, please consider joining our Examiner membership program.
Find out more at www.sfexaminer.com/join/

Just Posted

SF police issue first citation for violating stay at home order to abortion protester

Ronald Konopaski, 86, cited outside Planned Parenthood for allegedly failing to shelter in place

Pier 39 aquarium staff furloughed — but what about the fish?

Aquarium of the Bay raising funds from public to keep up operations during shutdown

Help the San Francisco Examiner, SF Weekly continue our mission of providing free, local news

This week, I was faced with the heartbreaking task of reducing the hours — and therefore the pay — of the very journalists who report, write, edit and photograph that news.

San Francisco police begin issuing citations for failing to shelter in place

Officers to cite businesses, people who fail to heed warnings

Ride-hail drivers left idling by coronavirus shutdown looking for a lift

Bay Area ride-hail drivers are among those who have been hit hardest… Continue reading

Most Read